* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:03] NO, THE, UH, IS AUDIO VISUAL READY? CAN WE START? ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. I HEREBY IT'S ONE OH THREE. I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS INTO SESSION. IF WE CAN GET THE, UH, SPANISH INTERPRETER TO COME OUT WITH THEIR PRESENTATION. ARE THE INTERPRETERS, UH, HERE? NOPE. OKAY, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO A ROLL CALL. VOTE. PLEA. UH, A ROLL CALL FOR ATTENDANCE. MR. SPIELMAN PRESENT. MR. MENCHACA? PRESENT. MR. DEAN? PRESENT. MS. CRUZ. MR. ZUNIGA? PRESENT. MS. BENAVIDES? PRESENT. MS. BRAGMAN? PRESENT. MR. OZUNA PRESENT. MR. VASQUEZ PRESENT, CHAIR ORIAN AND I'M PRESENT. UH, WE HAVE A QUORUM. QUORUM IS PRESENT. THANK YOU. IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE JOIN ME. IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TWO, THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE ONE, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. ALRIGHT. OKAY. IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE BE KIND AND SILENCE THEIR MOBILE DEVICES. WE'LL GET THIS STARTED. UM, BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I WILL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE MEETING. WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AND WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES AND OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER. AFTER EVERYONE HAS HEARD THE CASE, IT WILL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR THE, A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BO BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELEASE SOUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE RELIEF, UH, REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED IN SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW. BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S. DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE P PERTINENT FACTS OF YOUR CASE AND STAFF. IF YOU COULD, UH, HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ MARKED AS JOINING THE MEETING AT 1 0 7, I'D APPRECIATE IT. UH, AND STAFF YOUR PRESENTATION PLEASE. STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND THE PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY [00:05:01] THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST. FOR THOSE THAT ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION, YOU'LL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT IN OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU WILL NOT BE OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE A MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER. THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME UP FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK. GROUPS CONSISTING OF THREE OR MORE CITIZENS WILL BE ALLOTTED NINE MINUTES TOTAL TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON THE ITEM. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. YES. UH, NOW TYPICALLY WE DIVE RIGHT INTO OUR CASES, BUT TODAY WE HAVE TO, UH, UM, RECESS BRIEFLY INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE TIME IS NOW 1:09 PM ON AUGUST 21ST, 2023. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WILL NOW CONVENE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONSULTATION, UM, UNDER SECTION 5 5 1 DASH OH SEVEN ONE. WE'LL BE BACK SHORTLY. ALL RIGHT. IT'S ONE 17 ON AUGUST 21ST, 2023, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WILL NOW RECONVENE AN OPEN SESSION. NO OFFICIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ALL RIGHT. SO I UNDERSTAND THE SPANISH INTERPRETER IS NOW PRESENT. IF THEY COULD PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US THEIR PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. [ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items  ] AND WE'LL BE STARTING WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MARK CHAVEZ HERE WITH, UH, ZONING PLANNING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. UH, FIRST CASE HERE IS BO O A DASH 23 1 0 3 0 0 1 79. UH, ADDRESS BEING 2203 EAST COMMERCE STREET. UH, DISTRICT TWO, APPLICANT BEING HAN L L C D B A. FANTASTIC. SAMS THE REQUEST BEING FOR THE REQUEST FOR ONE AND A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ALLOW A BUILDING WITH FOUR STORIES, UH, ZONING BEING I D Z TWO MEDIUM, OH, GO AHEAD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG EAST COMMERCE STREET ADJACENT TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH NORTH LEE BRAUNFELS AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE FOR THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED USES TO ALLOW FOR A FOUR STORY STRUCTURE THAT WILL BE USED AS A HOTEL DESPITE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING LOCATED ON A MAJOR INTERSECTION. THE PORTION WHERE THE FOUR STORY DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LOCATED IS BETWEEN TWO PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ANY PORTION OF A COMMERCIAL OFFICE OR MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED WITHIN 50 LINEAR FEET OF THE PROPERTY. LINE OF AN ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, WHICH IS LIMITED TO 35 FEET OR TWO AND A HALF STORIES. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SURROUNDING AREA. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATION FOR THE HEIGHT VARIANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL, UH, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS. ONE BEING THE CON REQUEST IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES AS A FORESTRY STRUCTURE CAN IMPOSE ONTO THE INTEREST OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. AND TWO, MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS ARE ENFORCED TO PROTECT ACCESS OF LIGHT AND AIR TO PUBLIC STREETS AND ADJACENT BUILDINGS. WE MAILED OUT 29 NOTICES. ZERO IN FAVOR TO AN OPPOSITION. NO RESPONSE FROM THE JEFFERSON NE HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UH, DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION OF THE REQUESTS LOCATED LESS THAN 200 FEET IS A PUBLIC RESPONSE. UH, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATIONS. AND, UH, BEFORE, BEFORE YOU GO, DID THE DENVER HEIGHTS, UH, ASSOCIATION, UH, RESPONSE COME IN BETWEEN THE [00:10:01] LAST HEARING ON THIS CASE AND TODAY, OR WAS THAT THE ORIGINAL? IT'S, UH, DATED FOR JULY 14TH. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. IF THE APPLICANT CAN PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD AF GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US THIS IS RAKESH FAZI. UH, THANK YOU FOR THE CONTINUANCE IN, UH, GOOD AFTERNOON TO THE COMMITTEE. UM, I HAVE, UM, JUST KIND OF REFRESH YOUR MEMORY. WE'RE DOING THIS FOR A BETTER CAUSE FOR THE SAN ANTONIO AND THE GREAT, UM, GREATER SAN ANTONIO. WE ARE PUTTING, UH, PLANNING AND ENVISIONING TO HAVE, UH, AMERICAN GI VETERANS THAT ARE STAYING. THEY'RE ALREADY STAYING AND WE'RE ABOUT 80% CAPACITY AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE OUR SPACE TO, FOR THE HEIGHT, UM, BEING THAT WE'RE ONE MILE FROM THE RIVERWALK. AND THE PROXIMITY, THERE IS A HUGE DEMAND FOR, UH, VETERANS SPECIFICALLY, UM, HOMELESS VETERANS. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE GEARED FOR. AND THOSE ARE THE VETERANS THAT WERE ALREADY HOUSING. UH, HAVING SAID THAT, UM, AND KIND OF, UH, FOR THE VARIANCE, WE'VE TRIED TO REACH OUT TO THE, UM, THE NEIGHBORS THERE ON, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP THERE, UH, IT SAYS, CAN I GET THAT POINTER IF YOU HAD THAT POINTER. OKAY. WE, WE REACHED OUT TO, UM, THIS NEIGHBOR HERE AND UH, UM, UNFORTUNATELY JOSEPH IS NOT HERE WHO PART OF THE STAFF, BUT I JUST SENT OVER SOME, UH, IMAGES. WE'VE TRIED TO REACH OUT TO BOTH THIS NEIGHBOR, ALONG WITH THIS NEIGHBOR, BOTH OF WHOM ARE NON-RESPONSIVE. UM, SO, AND WE'VE ALSO REACHED OUT TO DENVER HEIGHTS AFTER THE CONTINUANCE. AND I HAVE LIKE DATES IN WHICH I'VE MADE NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS TO REACH OUT TO THEM AND TO NO AVAIL. WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET AHOLD OF ANYONE. UM, SPECIFICALLY THIS HOUSE HERE HAS A, UH, THIS HOME HERE. UM, THEY ARE, THERE WAS A, IN THE IMAGE YOU'LL SEE THERE'S LIKE PEOPLE, THERE'S UM, YOU KNOW, THOSE GARBAGE COLLECTIONS AND THERE'S DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT NOTICES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE HOME. AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE LIKE LIVES THERE AND THE HOME OVER ON KIND OF FURTHER EAST OF HERE, UM, THAT THE, IT'S A, I'VE NEVER GOT AHOLD OF THE TENANT. I ONLY GOT THE HOLD OF THE TENANT AND NOT THE OWNER. SO WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF IN A STALEMATE AT THIS POINT. I MEAN, WE'VE, WE'VE DONE ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. AND, UM, YEAH, SO WE'RE, WE'RE, AGAIN, WE'RE ONLY TRYING TO HELP THE AMERICAN GIS GROW. WE'RE TRYING TO GROW ALSO, UH, AS FAR AS THE, UH, SAN ANTONIO GOES, UH, ALONG WITH IT. SO HAVING SAID THAT, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT. OKAY. UM, LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY, UH, QUESTIONS OR STAFF. HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OR VOICEMAILS WE YOU LISTEN TO? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? UH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND START OFF. I MEAN, THE LAST TIME YOU'RE HERE, YOU KNOW, FOUR STORIES IS A BIG ASK. UH, THAT'S PRETTY HIGH. AND, UH, WE REALLY WANTED TO HEAR FROM THE NEIGHBORS. ABSOLUTELY. THAT WAS A, THAT WAS A RECURRING, UM, REMARK FROM A, FROM THE COMMISSION. UH, AND, AND I'M, I'M JUST GONNA ASK, UH, AND I BELIEVE I MAY HAVE ASKED THIS BEFORE, BUT YOU COULDN'T LIVE WITH THREE STORIES. YOU NEED FOUR AGAIN, WE'RE, I MEAN, THAT'S THE ONLY PARCEL WE HAVE. UM, GIVEN THAT WE'VE, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF THE LEGWORK THAT'S ALREADY, IF YOU CAN GO TO THAT SLIDE BEFORE PLEASE. WE'VE, WE'VE ALREADY, WE'VE BUILT THIS PORTION OUT. WE'RE ABOUT 80% FULL HERE. YEAH. AND WE'VE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, WITH A DEDICATED WATER AND SO ON THIS, IT'S, I REMEMBER IT'S, YEAH. YEAH. BUT I ALSO REMEMBER THAT YOUR APPROVED I EASY SITE PLAN, DIDN'T IT SHOW THE STRUCTURE GOING TO THE LEFT OF THE HOME THAT'S AT, UH, ONE 14 BELMONT. THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, NESTLED TO THE LEFT OF, OF THE GREEN AREA. THIS ONE. THAT'S CORRECT. WHERE IT SAYS FUTURE PARKING. I THOUGHT THE I D Z PLAN SHOWED THAT YOU WERE GOING TO, TO DO YOUR CONSTRUCTION AT THAT LOCATION. NO, HERE. NO. THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN. YOU'RE CORRECT, SIR. HAD THE BUILDING CLOSER TO NORTH NEW BRAUNFELS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. AND THAT WAS, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT, THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. THIS IS GONNA BE THE FUTURE PARKING. OKAY. BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOW AT, AT THAT LOCATION, YOU'VE GOT TWO PEOPLE ON EITHER SIDE OF YOU INSTEAD OF JUST ONE. AND I WAS JUST, I JUST WANTED TO ASK. ALRIGHT. UH, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO BRING UP BEFORE WE, UH, NO, WE, I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU AND I MEAN, THERE'S A HUGE NEED FOR THE HOME. THERE'S A LOT OF HOMELESS AND WE WANNA HELP AS MANY AS WE'RE ABLE TO. I UNDERSTAND. UH, WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES. I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. MINKA. COMMISSIONER MINKA, I WANTED TO ASK, UH, ONE MORE QUESTION. ANOTHER QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO THE, WHAT THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED. [00:15:01] UH, I'M NOT PUSHING THIS, BUT DID YOU SAY YOU WERE GONNA GO BACK AND RETHINK OR ABOUT THE TWO STORY, TWO STORIES? I MEAN'S WE WANNA FOUR ONLY IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WE WANNA DO FOUR STORIES. TWO IS ALREADY A GIVEN. WE WANNA DO FOUR AT THE MOST, PLEASE. OKAY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. . ALL RIGHT. CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ, UM, HOW MANY RESIDENTS DO YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW? WE, SO BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU'RE ABOUT 80% CAPACITY, CORRECT. HOW MANY, MAYBE TO TOTAL? WE HAVE ABOUT 28 RIGHT NOW. SO GIVEN THAT WE, MAYBE I NEED TO STEP BACK AND EXPLAIN. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU WERE HERE LAST SESSION, BUT I, I COULD BE WRONG, BUT ON THIS SIDE OVER HERE, WE HAVE 15 UNITS AND THEN WE ADDED 23 OVER HERE TO ACCOUNT TO TOTAL 20, UH, 38. AND WE'RE, WE'VE ALREADY GOT 28 RESIDENTS THERE ALREADY. AND WE DON'T WANT TO BE FULL CAPACITY, JUST, WE SCREEN A LITTLE BIT MORE VIGOROUSLY, UM, JUST 'CAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF FAMILIES THAT ARE THERE AND CHILDREN AND SCHOOLS ARE. SO WE WANNA BE VERY CAREFUL. UM, AGAIN, THE ASK IS FOUR, BUT YOU KNOW, WE, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO, THE MORE THE MERRIER 'CAUSE WE DO HAVE THE PARKING SPACE FOR AVAILABLE. WELL, I, I ONLY BROUGHT UP THREE BECAUSE YOU ASKED FOR FOUR. YES. YOU CAN DO TWO AND A HALF. THIS BOARD COULD APPROVE THREE IF NINE MEMBERS WOULD VOTE THAT WAY. BUT I WAS JUST, I WAS JUST ASKING, IS THERE ANY OTHER BOARD, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? I GOT ONE MORE. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, SO IF YOU GET THE THREE STORIES, HOW MANY MORE ROOMS WOULD THAT BE? UM, SO THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION, BUT RIGHT NOW WE, IT'D BE CLOSE TO ABOUT BETWEEN NINE TO 11 PER FLOOR BASED ON, BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS A, UH, BUILDING ALL A D A COMPLIANCE, UM, WHICH WILL THEN MAKE THE ROOMS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. HOWEVER, THE ROOMS WILL BE COMPROMISED A LITTLE BIT IN SIZE. UM, SO GIVEN, SO ON YOUR SHORT ANSWER, IT'S EITHER 27 ON A LOW NUMBER. IF WE DO THREE STORY RIGHT, IF WE DO, YOU KNOW, 36. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, NO MORE. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER BROWN. IS, IS THE GREEN, UH, THE ONE IN GREEN, IS THIS THE PROPOSED PROPERTY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES. OKAY. AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE HOW MANY, HOW MANY IN THERE? MA'AM? CAN YOU SPEAK INTO YOUR MICROPHONE PLEASE? IT'S HARD TO HEAR YOU. I'M SORRY. HOW MANY, UH, APARTMENTS ARE YOU PLANNING FOR THAT IF WE GO, IF GIVEN THAT IT'S FOUR STORY, IT WOULD BE NINE TIMES FOUR, SO 36 AND IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY, BUT IT'S NOT FOUR. IT'S NOT FOUR NOW IT'S ONLY TWO, RIGHT? IT HASN'T BEEN BUILT. THE ONLY BUILT ONLY HASN'T BEEN BUILT, BUILT ONLY PORTION IS THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND, UH, I DO WANNA MENTION QUICKLY IF YOU CAN PULL THOSE OTHER IMAGES, PLEASE. THESE ARE OLD PICTURES AND I SENT THEM TO REBECCA. BEING THAT, BEING THAT WE'RE ON THE EAST SIDE, WE DO NEED TO SECURE THIS PLOT. AND WE HAVE, UM, AGAIN, SAGE IS ALL SAN ANTONIO FOR EAST SIDE IS ON BOARD. WE HAVE, UH, SO MANY DIFFERENT ENTITIES. DISTRICT TWO, COUNCILMAN, UH, RODRIGUEZ IS ALSO ON BOARD WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. THIS IS THE, THESE ARE THE DIFFERENT THINGS. THIS IS THE NEIGHBOR THAT'S KIND OF TO THE LEFT, IF YOU WILL, OF THAT GREEN, THAT'S THAT HOUSE. BUT CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT IMAGE, PLEASE? YES. AS YOU COULD SEE, WE HAVE SUCH A NICE FACILITY OUT TO THAT LOT AND THEY JUST KIND OF USE OUR INTERNET. THEY JUST, UM, WE NEED TO SECURE THAT. WE DO, WE NEED TO PUT A, WE'RE WE'VE ALREADY, LIKE, WE WANT TO OFFENSE IT AND MAKE IT REALLY, I, I UNDERSTAND. UH, BUT WE'RE HERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE HEIGHT, SO I UNDERSTAND. BUT, UH, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND, UM, WE CAN DO, RIGHT NOW THEY'RE ALLOWED TWO AND A HALF STORIES. HE'S ASKING FOR FOUR. WE CAN DO SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN IF A COMMISSIONER FEELS SO WARRANTED. SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? ALL RIGHT. I MEAN, I'LL DO IT IF NO ONE ELSE. . OKAY, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. ALRIGHT. REGARDING CASE NUMBER B O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 79, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR ONE FOR A TWO STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM, NO, SORRY, WHAT IF I'M TRYING TO, OH, IT'S JUST HALF STORY VARIANCE. [00:20:01] ONE AND A HALF STORY. OH, JUST HALF STORY VARIANCE. UM, GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A HALF STORY VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ALLOW A BUILDING WITH THREE STORIES SITUATED AT 2 2 0 3 EAST COMMERCE STREET, APPLICANT BEING RAHAN L L C D B A FANTASTIC SAMS, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. FOR THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PROTECTION OF VIEW. FOR THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO DEVIATE FROM THE, UH, MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES, UH, PERMITTED IF ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL USES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE THREE STORIES TALL. STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST TO IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES AS A TOWERING STRUCTURE WILL NOT IMPOSE ONTO THE HEIGHT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY. RESIDENTIAL USES TWO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT BUILDING THE STRUCTURE 35 FEE OR TWO AND A HALF STORIES IN HEIGHT. THIS WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE PROPOSED USE INTENDED. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO FIND AT THE, AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE, RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW STAFF FINDS THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ZONED I D Z TWO, WHICH PASSED FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF COMMERCIAL USES AND A HOTEL. THE REQUEST DOES NOT SEEM TO BE OUTTA CHARACTER WITH THE ASSIGNED BASED ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED. THE REQUEST VARIANCE WILL NOT, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT UPON SITE VISITS. STAFF OBSERVED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING LOCATED NEAR A HIGH VOLUME INTERSECTION. THIS INTERSECTION IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE FOR THIS COMMUNITY OR OTHER MEDIUM COMMERCIAL USES WERE OB OBSERVED, THUS NOT BEING OUT OF CHARACTER FROM THE SURROUNDING LAND USES. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS SUPPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE APPLICANT NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED USE. THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL AND OF MOTION. SECOND, I'LL SECOND THAT. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UH, YES, I COMMEND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO DO. AT THE SAME TIME, I ALSO, UH, UNDERSTAND THE, THE RIGHTS OF THOSE, UH, RESIDENTS NEARBY TO HAVE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY AS WELL. UM, SO THAT'S WHY I PROPOSED THREE STORIES INSTEAD OF FOUR. IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE CAPACITY, BUT I DON'T THINK IT INTERFERES IN THE VIEW QUITE AS MUCH AS FOUR STORIES WOULD. THAT'S FAIR. ALL RIGHT. AND, UH, I ALSO AGREE WITH, UH, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER, BUT I WOULDN'T REQUEST IF, IF THE MOTION COULD BE LIMITED TO THE PORTION IN QUESTION, WHICH IS, UH, HAS A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LOT 32 BLOCK SEVEN N CCB 1440. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. . ALRIGHT, SO THE MOTION HAS BEEN AMENDED TO BE LIMITED TO THAT AREA IN GREEN THAT WE SAW, UH, DURING THE PRESENTATION. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER ZU, THERE BE ANY CONSIDERATION TO, UH, UH, AMEND TO A FOUR STORY AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD FOR THAT. FOUR STORIES? WELL, SINCE WE'RE IN DELIBERATION, IS IT IS, UM, ANYBODY WHO WOULD NOT BE, UH, FOUR, FOUR STORIES. IF THERE'S A, A COUPLE, TWO OR THREE COMMISSIONERS NOT, NOT IN FAVOR OF FOUR STORIES, LET US KNOW AND THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO, UH, GO THERE. CRUZ, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, I'M WITH, UH, MS. BREGMAN. I THINK THE THREE STORIES WOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH. I MEAN, I KNOW WHAT, LIKE SHE SAID, I KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT, UM, IN THAT VICINITY, IT'S HARD TO SAY [00:25:01] IT WON'T STAND OUT WITH FOUR STORIES. SO I WILL GO WITH THE THREE. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? UH, AGAINST FOUR STORIES? NO. YEAH, YEAH. YOU, OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. UH, I AM ALSO, UH, IN AGREEMENT, UH, WITH, WITH, UM, MY TWO PREVIOUS COLLEAGUES. UH, THREE, UH, STORIES, UH, UH, IS, IS WHAT THE COMMUNITY, UH, WOULD, WOULD PROBABLY TOLERATE. UH, SO I'M, I I'M IN AGAINST THE FOUR. UH, OKAY. UM, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD, UH, HEARING NONE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. OH, HELLO, MS. BRAMAN? YES. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAMAN. I, I WOULD LIKE TO AGREE. I, I THINK THE FOUR STORIES IN THAT AREA IS WAY TOO MUCH, ESPECIALLY FOR THE ONE STORY HOUSES THAT THEY HAVE. AND THE, IS THIS THE PROPERTY THAT I'M LOOKING AT THIS VACANT LOT WHERE THE PROPERTY IS GONNA BE BUILT? WHERE THE YES, WHERE THE GREEN PORTION IS. OKAY. WELL, IT'S A LOT OF GREEN PORTION THERE AND THE DIAGRAM. YEAH. UM, SO YEAH, I THINK THREE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MR. CHAIR, WE ROLL CALL ON THE MOTION. UH, THE ROLL. THE, THE ROLL CALL WILL BE FOR THE MOTION, UM, UH, AS READ FOR THREE STORIES AND, AND AMENDED TO, TO SOLELY INCLUDE THE, THE LOT 32 PORTION, UH, ONLY AND NOT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. SPIELMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. DEAN, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. MANES. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ, EXCUSE ME. I NEED CLARIFICATION. UH, I AM IN FAVOR OF THE THREE STORY BUILDING. UH, HOW DO I, UH, INDICATE THAT, UH, YOU WOULD VOTE? UH, CONCUR. I CONCUR. MOTION PASSES SEVEN THREE. ALL RIGHT. I'M, I'M, I'M SORRY. I'M USUALLY LAST, SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU HAD TO CALL. EXCUSE ME. SO I DON'T GET A VOTE. I'M SO SORRY, MS. BROWN. I CONCUR. OKAY. THE VOTE IS EIGHT TO THREE MOTION FAILS. UH, I APOLOGIZE. UH, SIR, BUT IF YOU GET WITH STAFF, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SO IT'S OKAY TO BILL THREE IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? NOPE. UH, TWO AND A HALF IS ALL YOU. YOU CAN DO THE, THE MOTION FAILED. YOU NEED NINE VOTES. AND IF VOTE WAS EIGHT TO THREE, SO IT DIDN'T, I I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THREE IS WHAT I HAD SAID. NO, YOU'RE ALLOWED TWO AND A HALF. WE CAN MAKE A MOTION FOR UP TO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. WE REDUCED IT FROM FOUR TO THREE, UH, AND THE MOTION DID NOT PASS. SO THEREFORE YOU'RE, YOU'RE STUCK WITH WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED BY. RIGHT? WHICH IS TWO AND A HALF STORIES. UNLESS THE PREVAILING SIDE WOULD RECONSIDER THE MOTION. EXACTLY. UNLESS SOMEONE, UNLESS SOMEONE WHO VOTED NO IS, UH, WOULD LIKE TO RECONSIDER HEARING NOTHING. I'M SORRY, SIR, IF YOU COULD PLEASE, OH, I'M SORRY. WE COMMISSIONER BE WOULD LIKE TO RECONSIDER. SO, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. UH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND IT. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE FOR RECONSIDERATION, PLEASE. MS. VID. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. YES, MR. CHAIR. IT'LL BE FOR, UH, TWO AND A HALF. IT'LL BE FOR, IT'S RECONSIDER WE START OVER. ALL OVER. SO JUST A RECONSIDERATION, SIR. MR. RECONSIDERATION, WHAT IS YOUR VOTE, SIR? YES. NO, NO. MR. SPIELMAN? YES, MS. BROWN. I'M CONFUSED. WHAT ARE WE DOING NOW? YEAH, SO THE MOTION DIDN'T PASS. YEAH. SO MICROPHONE, THE DOWN SO LOW THAT THE, THE VOICE DOES NOT, YEAH. SO THE, THE MOTION DIDN'T PASS, BUT THE THREE, ANY OF THE THREE INDIVIDUALS WHO VOTED NO IS ALLOWED TO, UH, MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. UH, SO COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES WAS, WAS A NO VOTE. SO SHE MADE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND WE'LL, WE WILL HEAR IT AGAIN. SHE'S BASICALLY SAYING THAT SHE'S CHANGING HER MIND, BASICALLY. MAYBE WE'LL FIND OUT. BUT, UH, THIS IS JUST TO CLEAR THE SLATE SO THAT THE ITEM CAN BE TAKEN UP AGAIN. THAT'S ALL THIS IS. YEAH. SO DO YOU WANT TO RECONSIDER THE ITEM OR ARE YOU GOOD WITH JUST PROCEEDING THE WITNESS? NO, I DON'T WANNA RECONSIDER MY VOTE IS, IS, YOU KNOW, MY VOTE. OKAY, GOOD. OKAY. SO THAT'S A NO. ALRIGHT. MR. MENCHACA? YES, MR. DEAN. I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR. [00:30:02] MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ? YES. I CONCUR THAT WE, I WANT, I WANT TO RECONSIDER. YEAH. SO MOTION PASSES FOR RECONSIDERATION. NOW WE HAVE AN OPEN SLATE. UH, WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. IT CAN BE FOR THE SAME MOTION IF THEY SO WISH. UM, IF IT'S FOR THE SAME, YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THE ENTIRE THING AGAIN. YOU CAN JUST READ THE BEGINNING. COMMISSIONER, WHICH PART? UH, JUST THE OPENING PART. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 1 79, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. GRANTED A REQUEST FOR A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ALLOW A BUILDING WITH THREE STORIES SITUATED AT 2 2 0 3 EAST COMMERCE STREET. APPLICANT BEING RAHAN, L L C D B A FANTASTIC SAMS, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED, IT WOULD RESULT IN A NECESSARY HARDSHIP. ALL RIGHT. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. UM, SO THIS IS THE EXACT SAME MOTION AS WE HEARD BEFORE, AND, UM, IT WAS, UH, IT WAS VOTED FOR RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER BEEZ, UH, BEUS. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE TAKE A ROLL CALL? VOTE NO. ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN ? YEAH, SO JUST, AND JUST TO RE-EXPLAIN, UM, WHEN I READ THE RESULTS OF A MOTION, THAT'S THE VOTE. HOWEVER, ANYBODY, ANY COMMISSIONER WHO WAS ON THE PREVAILING SIDE, MEANING, UH, WHO VOTED NO IN THIS CASE, UH, COULD REQUEST AND MAKE A MOTION FOR US TO RECONSIDER. MAYBE SOMEBODY CHANGED THEIR MIND. MAYBE THEY, UH, REALIZED SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T REALIZE PRIOR. AND, UH, AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN READ THE MOTION, UH, EXACTLY AS READ BEFORE. UH, 'CAUSE THERE'S AN ANTICIPATION THAT ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, CHANGED THEIR MIND, MEANING THAT IT'S THREE STORIES THAT WE'RE VOTING. YEAH. THE MOTION IS FOR THREE STORIES. SO IF YOU VOTED FOR THREE STORIES PRIOR, SO IF YOU VOTE YES, YOU'RE VOTING TO, UH, ALLOW A VARIANCE TO THREE STORIES. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER LUKA. UH, DOES THE APPLICANT AGREE WITH THREE? IT DOESN'T MATTER. HE DOESN'T, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO BUILD ANYTHING. HE DOESN'T WANT TO. HE DOESN'T HAVE A VOICE ON THIS. NO, HE DOES NOT. UH, 'CAUSE FOUR WAS NOT GONNA PASS. SO AIN'T GONNA PASS. SO IF THERE'S YES. COMMISSIONER STATEMENT. I HAD A QUESTION. WHEN IT SAYS THREE STORIES, IS THERE A LIMIT TO HOW HIGH THOSE THREE STORIES CAN BE? YEAH. SO THREE STORIES IS 35 FEET. YES, SIR. AND TWO AND A HALF STORIES IS ALSO 35 FEET. SO IT JUST MEANS THAT THEY CAN BUILD A LITTLE MORE ON THAT, ON THAT THIRD DECK. NO, WE'RE NOT VOTING TO GO ABOVE THAT. SO, UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. CHAIR ORIAN. YES. MR. SPIELMAN? YES. MS. BROWN? YES. MR. MANCHACA? YES. INE I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINEST OF FACT. MS. VANES. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS. MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ? YES, I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. 10 TO ONE. THANK YOU. SO YOU CAN GO TO THREE STORIES. THANK YOU. AND AS BEFORE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE UH, GET WITH THAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ITEM TWO. YES. COMMISSIONER EUNIAH. THREE STORIES. YES. COMMISSIONER, UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO, PLEASE. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON, MARK CHAVEZ ZONING PLANNER. SORRY. ALRIGHT, IT'S UH, B O A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 8. ADDRESS BEING 1823 BURNETT STREET CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT TWO, APPLICANT BEING HAAN PROPERTIES L L C REQUEST FOR ONE, A THREE FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY THROAT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 16 FOOT FIVE INCH DRIVEWAY THROW, OR A THREE FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE SIX FEET FIVE INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY. LINE TWO, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THREE SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON AN MF 33 ZONE LOT THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. THREE, A VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT ENTRY ORIENTED TO THE PRIMARY STREET TO ALLOW A SIDE DOOR AND FOUR A HALF STEREO VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH THREE STORIES [00:35:02] AND A ZONED MF 33 SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG BURNETT STREET, EAST OF NORTH AVER STREET. UPON REVIEW BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY THROAT REQUIREMENT OF 20 FEET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO HAVE A 16 FOOT SEVEN INCH DRIVEWAY THROAT AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. THE RELU RESOLUTION OF THIS IS EITHER ONE OF THE TWO FOLLOWING WAYS. OBTAIN THE MENTIONED DRIVEWAY THROAT VARIANCE OF THREE FOOT SEVEN INCH, OR A REAR SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE SIX FOOT FIVE INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE TO SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMMODATE THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY. THROAT UPON REVIEW IS NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT WOULD NEED TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL VARIANCES FOR THE FRONT ENTRY ORIENTATION, SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON AN MF DEVELOPMENT, AND TO EXCEED A MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES WHEN ABUTTING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO TO FOUR UNITS, TWO TO FOUR UNITS ON A LOTS, ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE IN SIZE OR SMALLER SHALL HAVE A FRONT ENTRY ORIENTED BY THE PRIMARY STREET IN WHICH THE LOT IS ADDRESSED ON. THESE PROVISIONS SHALL ONLY APPLY TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE THAT ABUTS THE PRIMARY STREET. FURTHERMORE, MULTI-UNIT CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS. ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE IN SIZE OR SMALLER SHALL BE WITHIN A SINGLE STRUCTURE. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT BY ANY PORTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT IS LOCATED WITHIN 50 FEET. 50 LINEAR FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE OF AN ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY USE SHALL BE LIMITED AT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN WITH THE DRIVEWAY THROAT VARIANCE. AND THIS IS OPTION TWO WITH THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE. IT'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREAS. SO ON THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND B O DASH 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. FINDS THESE THE FACTS. ONE, THE, AN ANTICIPATED REAR SETBACK DISTANCE PROVIDES AN ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF SPACING, WHICH WILL NOT INFRINGE ON SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND WILL PROVIDE A SUITABLE DISTANCE FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND TWO, DEPENDING OF APPROVAL OF THE REAR SETBACK REQUEST, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL ADHERE TO THE SAFETY OF ACCOMMODATING THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY. THROAT FOR VEHICLES. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DRIVEWAY THROAT, THREE SEPARATE STRUCTURES, FRONT ENTRY ORIENTATION, AND HALF STORY VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL, ONE BEING THE INTENTION OF MINIMUM DRIVEWAY THROAT REQUIREMENTS ENSURES SAFE AND EFFICIENT FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW WITHIN A PROPERTY AS WELL AS PREVENTING ACCIDENTS FROM OCCURRING. AND TWO, THE OBJECTIVE OF OF FINDING, OF PROVIDING FRONT ENTRY ORIENTATION TO THE STREET THE PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED, ALLOWS FOR PROPER PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY. AND THREE, THE CONTAINMENT OF UNITS WITHIN A SINGLE STRUCTURE ALLOWS FOR SMALLER PROPERTIES FROM BECOMING OVERCROWDED. AND FOUR HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS TO PREVENT STRUCTURE FROM IMPEDING ONTO ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES THE NOTIFICATION PLAN, 32 NOTICES SENT OUT, ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. UH, NO RESPONSE FROM THE HARVARD PLACE. EAST LAWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THE, SO THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF'S PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, WE'LL LET THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. ALEX SCHWARTZMAN. I'M, UH, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER. UH, I WANTED TO, I CAME HERE, YOU SHOULD, TO TALK ABOUT THE FIRST, UH, VARIANCE, WHICH WAS THE, UH, YOU KNOW, 12 DISTANCE FROM THE STREET. MM-HMM. , UH, THINKING THAT'S THE ONLY THING. AND THEN I FOUND OUT LATE THAT, UH, STAFF HAD ADDED THREE ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL VARIANCES. SO FORGIVE ME IF I ASK SOME QUESTIONS TO STAFF ABOUT SOME OF THE RULES. I TRY TO READ A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT, BUT I'M DOING IT AS I GO. UH, THANK YOU, UH, SO MUCH. SO AS FAR AS THE FIRST VARIANCE, UH, THE IDEA IS THAT, UH, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, PLEASE CLARIFY IF I'M MISTAKEN, UH, THAT THE, THERE NEEDS TO BE 20 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, ON THE ADJACENT STREET TO THE FIRST ACCESS POINT, WHICH IS A GARAGE, UH, THAT NEEDS TO BE FOR 20 FEET. SO, UH, THE WAY THE PROJECT WAS DONE WAS ONLY SIX AND A HALF FEET. YEAH. SO THE, THE, THERE'S A 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY THROAT REQUIREMENT. CORRECT. UH, AND IF YOU, IF YOU MEET THAT, THEN, THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A PROBLEM ON THE SETBACK. CORRECT? UH, BUT IF YOU GET THE SET, BUT IF YOU GET THE DRIVEWAY WITHOUT VARIANCE AND YOU [00:40:01] DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM ON CORRECT THE SETBACK. SO WHAT WE DID IS WE MOVED THE, WE HAD ABOUT 20 FEET ON THE BACK. SO WHAT WE DID IS WE MOVED THE WHOLE PROJECT BACK 10 FEET TO THE, TO THE SETBACK OF 10 FEET ON THE BACK. BUT THAT ONLY GAVE US 16 AND A HALF FEET. SO THAT'S WHERE WE WERE. AND SINCE I FELT THAT THE COMMITTEE MIGHT NOT APPROVE THAT, BECAUSE IT'S A TRAFFIC, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DELICATE THAN A A REAR SETBACK, I CAME UP WITH THE IDEA, WELL, WHAT IF WE JUST MOVE IT THAT ADDITIONAL THREE AND A HALF FEET FURTHER BACK, IT WILL NOT REALLY IMPACT THE PROJECT AT ALL. UH, AND IT'LL ALLOW FOR 20 FEET IN THE FRONT, WHICH IS THE MAIN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE IMPORTANT THING HERE. UH, AND IT'S JUST AS FOR THE VARIANCE, UH, ON THE BACK FOR THE SETBACK. SO, SO A QUICK QUESTION. UH, AND, AND STAFF MAY NEED TO CHIME IN ON THIS. UH, AT, AT 16.5 FEET, THAT'S NORMALLY MEASURED TO THE FIRST POINT OF CONFLICT. ARE THEY PRETTY PROPOSING PARKING ON THAT SIDE, ON THAT STREET SIDE OF THE FIRST BUILDING? I THINK THAT WOULD BE A CLARIFICATION FOR THE APPLICANT. SO ARE YOU PROPOSING ANY PARKING AS SOON AS YOU TURN IN THAT DRIVEWAY? DO YOU HAVE A PARKING SPACE TO THE RIGHT, UH, OR IS IT, OR, OR NOT? CAN. OKAY. SO, UH, PERFECT. SO THIS IS, UH, BUT THAT NUMBER ONE IS BURNETT STREET. YEAH. UH, I BELIEVE THAT 20 FEET ARE MEASURED FROM THIS POINT. IT'S FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AFTER THE, AFTER THE SIDEWALK TO THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING. THE, THE MEASUREMENT IS TO THE FIRST POINT OF CONFLICT OR TURN IN. SO IF YOU HAVE A PARKING SPACE OR A GARAGE DOOR, THERE IS, WELL, THE WAY THIS PROJECT WAS DONE IS THERE IS A TWO CAR GARAGE ON EACH UNIT. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE ISSUE THEN. THAT IS THE ISSUE THAT THERE IS A TWO CAR GARAGE HERE. SO, YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY WE COULD MAKE THIS UNIT ONLY ONE CAR GARAGE. YOU COULD ALSO PUT THE UNITS CLOSER THAN 10 FEET. IF YOU FIRE EIGHT THE WALLS, YOU COULD DO THAT TOO. YEAH, WE COULD DO THAT AS WELL, YES. OKAY. SO, UM, IS, IS, UH, WITH REGARDS TO THE DRIVEWAY THROAT, IF YOU DON'T GET THAT, THE OTHER VARIANCE, THE ORE PART OF THAT FIRST VARIANCE WOULD BE TO DO THE BACK THERE. IS THERE ONE THAT YOU WOULD BE, WOULD RATHER HAVE, WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE THE SETBACK VARIANCE OR THE 20 FOOT VARIANCE? JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, OUTTA CURIOSITY. I MEAN, IDEAL IN AN IDEAL WORLD, THE FRONT, BECAUSE THAT'LL GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE ON THE BACK. GOT IT. PUT SOME MORE TREES, UH, TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF GREEN SPACE, WHICH I, WE WOULD REALLY LIKE. I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR THE COMMISSION TO BE AWARE OF. UM, SO I SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? THIS IS WHAT OPTION TWO LOOKS LIKE ON THE SCREEN. AS YOU COULD SEE, THE BUILDINGS ARE ALL SHIFTED TO THE REAR MM-HMM. , AND THEN, AND THEN THERE'S MORE SPACE IN THE FRONT. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY A TREE HERE, AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN ADDRESSED THAT. UH, AND THAT IF WE MOVE THIS BACK, WE MAY NEED TO TAKE THAT TREE OUT AND THEN CLINT MORE TREES TO COMPLY WITH THE, WITH THE REQUIREMENT. YES, SIR. UH, BUT IDEALLY WE WOULD SAVE THE TREE. SO THAT'S ALSO ANOTHER OF THE, THE ISSUES THAT I, I FEEL THAT THE VARIANCE IN THE FRONT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE BENEFICIAL, NOT ONLY FOR THE PROJECT, BUT FOR THE TREE AND, AND THE, THE POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING MORE TREES IN THE BACK. SO DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON, ON THIS OR THE OTHER, UH, VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED FOR THE APPLICANT? OH, CRUZ, MR. CRUZ. UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE NOW AND I'M NOT SURE OF WHAT SLIDE IT IS. I THINK, OH, SLIDE 16. UM, IT'S SLIDE 16 OF YOUR PRESENTATION, GUYS. UM, THAT ONE, NO, YOU JUST MISSED IT. THAT ONE. WHICH TREE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THE ONE TO THE RIGHT OR THE ONE ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK? WELL, THESE TREES ARE NOT, THERE'S THE ONE ALL THE WAY IN THE BACK. THESE TREES ARE ACTUALLY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. OKAY. SO IN REALITY, THERE'S ONLY ONE TREE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO SAVE, AND THAT'S THE TREE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAVE, BECAUSE THESE TREES THAT YOU SEE HERE ARE ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. OH, OKAY. WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ON YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE FENCE THERE, SO THAT'S WHY I'LL COME FIGURE ABOUT IT. YEAH. LET ME SEE IF I HAVE A BETTER PICTURE. UH, YEAH, I MEAN, SHOW THIS PICTURE. UH, IT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT BETTER LIGHT. IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME PICTURE, BUT WITH A LITTLE BIT BETTER LIGHT. AND THAT'LL ALLOW YOU TO SEE, UH, A LITTLE BIT BETTER. SO THIS TREE IS ACTUALLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THE NEIGHBORING. SO THEY TOLD ME THAT THAT TREE DOESN'T BELONG TO ME BECAUSE IT'S MOSTLY ON THE OTHER SIDE, SO I CANNOT COUNT THAT TREE. AND THIS TREE BACK HERE IS THE TREE THAT IN QUESTION. UH, THIS PROJECT HERE, UH, PRETTY MUCH TOOK CARE OF ALL THE TREES THAT WE HAD AN ISSUE WITH BECAUSE APPARENTLY THEY WERE ON THEIR SIDE. UH, SO STAFF DID NOT COUNT ON US ON MY PROFITS. I DIDN'T [00:45:01] EVEN HAVE A SAY IN WHAT TO DO WITH THREE OR FOUR TREES THAT WERE HERE. OKAY. UH, WE WERE TRYING TO SAVE THEM. WE WEREN'T EVEN GONNA GO KIND. CAN I GO AROUND WITH THE DRIVEWAY TO TRY TO SAVE SOME OF THEM, BUT RIGHT. IS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO MR. SPIELMAN? UH, I NOTICED THAT YOU'VE, UH, GOT THREE SEPARATE BUILDINGS THERE AND, AND THE ISSUE IS, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULD TRY TO PUT IT IN. ONE WOULD, IS THERE AN ORIENTATION WHERE TWO BUILDINGS WOULD, UH, GIVE YOU MORE FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF THOSE SETBACKS? BECAUSE WITH TWO BUILDINGS, WITH THREE UNITS IN EACH, YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY REORIENT IT SOMEHOW. YEAH, WELL, IT, IT, THE, IT WOULDN'T FIT BECAUSE IT'S SIX KIND OF TOWN HOME TYPE UNITS, SO THEY'RE NOT REALLY APARTMENTS. UH, SO IF YOU SEE THIS PICTURE, CAN YOU SWAP TO THE OTHER PICTURE? UH, JUST, YEAH, JUST, YEAH, THERE YOU GO. THIS IS, THESE ARE THE OTHER, UH, THE, THE BUILDING RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO ME. SO THEY HAVE FOUR BUILDINGS AND THAT WAS APPROVED AND THEIR ORIENTATION IS SIDEWAYS AS WELL. AND THAT WAS APPROVED. THERE'S, UH, OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE SAME SITUATION AROUND THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, I GREW UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND AND I SAW A COUPLE OTHER PROJECTS LIKE THAT, THAT THEY'RE THERE AND THEY'RE WITH THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCE. SO IT, IT WASN'T THE QUESTION OF WHAT'S THERE, IT'S LIKE, COULD YOU, YOU KNOW, UH, BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF UNITS, IT WOULD BE REALLY HARD TO DO SIX UNITS SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE WE, BECAUSE THE, THE LOT IS ONLY, I THINK 60 FEET WIDE. SO I MEAN, THAT, I'LL PUT OUT THERE THAT ONE REASON WHY IS THAT IF YOU START GOING ABOVE THE DUPLEX, YOU START HAVING TO DO FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. OH. SO THAT USUALLY POPS, ITS POPS UP COMMISSIONER BRACKEN. AND WHEN, WHEN NOTE ON THAT, I AM BEING REQUIRED TO PUT, UH, SPRINKLERS. OKAY. BECAUSE OF ONE OF THE, OF THE, APPARENTLY BECAUSE OF THE HIGH DISC CABLES HERE, UH, YOU CAN SEE 'EM ON THIS, THIS SIDE. YEAH. APPARENTLY, UH, A FIRE TRUCK MAY HAVE ISSUES GOING IN AND OUT THERE. YEAH. YOU DON'T HAVE AN AERIAL APPARATUS LINE. SO, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDED, YOU KNOW WHAT, UH, YOU CAN OPEN UP, DON'T GET OFF TOPIC, BUT BURY THEM. BUT IT'S GONNA BE A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE IF YOU'RE, IF YOUR HEIGHT EXCEEDS 30 FEET, THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN A APPARATUS LANE. IF YOU CAN'T DO SO BECAUSE OF THE, THE LOWNESS OF THE CABLES, THEN ONE EXEMPTION WOULD BE TO HAVE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. SO COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UH, YEAH, BACK TO THE TREE. SO THE QUESTION IS HOW, WHAT IS THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THAT TREE? IS IT A HERITAGE TREE? YOU KNOW, THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE TREE? I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GONNA HAVE ANY HAND. I MEAN, IT'S ABOUT 10 INCHES. YEAH. THAT'S NOT HERE. SO IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A FAIRLY MEDIUM SIZED TREE, SO, OKAY. SO, AND I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, THE 50 FOOT, UH, ISSUE ABOUT THE HEIGHT THAT WE'RE HERE FOR THE LOT NEXT TO ON, ON THE WEST OF HIS IS VACANT. IT'S OWNED MF 33 AND THE LOT TO THE RIGHT IS, IS OWNED BY A CHURCH. IF IT'S USED FOR, UH, WITH A VACANT LOT THAT'S OWNED MF 33 AND A LOT NEXT TO HIM, IF IT'S USED FOR, FOR CHURCH ACTIVITIES, IT DOES. HE DOESN'T, THAT 50 FOOT RULE DOESN'T APPLY. IT, IT HAS A, IT HAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE. SO EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A CHURCH, IT, IT'S STILL CONSIDERED A, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE THAT STRUCTURE. SO THAT'S WHAT, WHY IT'S APPLICABLE. I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO ASK MM-HMM. , THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND FOR THE BOARD, UH, ABOUT THAT. UH, I BELIEVE AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT AND, UH, SIR, CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? SO WE CAN ALL HEAR YOU? I, I APOLOGIZE. I BELIEVE THAT I READ THIS MORNING, UH, SOMEWHERE IN DOMINICAN. I COULDN'T FIND IT RIGHT NOW, BUT, UH, THERE'S A RULE THAT IF THE LIVING, UH, LIVING FACILITIES ARE WITHIN THE HEIGHT AND THE EXCESSIVE HEIGHT IS BY AN ATTIC OR SPACE FOR, YOU KNOW, MACHINERY OR THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT THAT COULD BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT RULE. NOT NECESSARILY THE TWO AND A HALF OR THREE, UH, STORIES, BUT TO THE HEIGHT. YEAH. WHAT I WAS READING FROM IS, IS NOTE 11 WHERE IT SAYS THE HEIGHT LIMIT SHALL NOT APPLY. WE'RE IN A BUDDING PROPERTY ZONE, SINGLE FAMILY, BUT NOT USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE SUCH, SUCH AS A CHURCH. UH, AND SO I WAS JUST, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. BUT, BUT, UH, IT DOESN'T IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, THAT THE HEIGHT, THERE'S AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT WHEN THE EXCESS HEIGHT, WELL, THE HEIGHT GOES TO THE DECK OF, OF THE ROOF. IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE ATTIC SPACE UNLESS IT'S OCCUPIABLE. CORRECT. THE HEIGHT MEASUREMENT ONLY GOES TO THE DECK. IT DOESN'T GO ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP ROOF. RIGHT. SO YEAH, NOW THERE'S A, A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION ALSO AS TO THE HALF STORY AND SO, YEAH. YEAH. SO BECAUSE THE, THE HEIGHT OF THE CEILING [00:50:01] OF THE THIRD FLOOR IS 31 FEET. RIGHT. AND, UH, IT DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT THAT HEIGHT. IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU STILL CAN'T EXCEED MORE THAN 50% OF THE FLOOR SPACE IF YOU HAVE A PITCH ROOF. IT HAS TO BE SET A CERTAIN WAY. THERE'S, THERE'S A NEW DEFINITION THAT WENT INTO PLACE JANUARY 1ST, SO YEAH. BUT AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO MUCH OFF TOPIC ON THAT. ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO HERE, UM, OKAY, SO HERE, UH, SCREW IT DOWN SO YOU, THEY CAN SEE THE TOP. THERE YOU GO. SO THE HEIGHT OF THE THIRD FLOOR, THE CEILING HEIGHT OF THE THIRD FLOOR, BUT IT'S STILL A THIRD FLOOR. HUH? STILL A THIRD FLOOR. TWO AND A HALF STORIES IS NOT HEIGHT. NO, NO, NO, NO. I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE TWO AND A HALF OR THREE STORIES. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL HEIGHT. OH, OKAY. THAT IT'S BELOW 25 FEET. OH, THAT'S, WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S GREAT BECAUSE I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE'S THE TWO AND A HALF OR THREE STORIES AND THEN THERE'S THE HEIGHT TO, TO DEAL WITH. SO THAT I WAS TRYING. RIGHT. SO I MEAN, I WAS TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT THE HEIGHT IS, IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED 31. SO THIS ACTUALLY DOESN'T GO PAST THE 25 FEET HEIGHT THAT'S REQUIRED. NOW, UH, THE REASON THIS IS THREE FLOORS AND NOT TWO AND A HALF FLOORS IS BECAUSE THE BOTTOM FLOOR IS, UH, GARAGE JUST PARKING. SO WE'RE NOT USING ANY LIVING. SO IN REALITY, IT'S JUST TWO FLOORS OF LIVING SPACE. OKAY. I, I DULY NOTED. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE FOUR VARIANCES AS A PART OF THIS REQUEST. UM, THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENTARY VOICEMAILS, NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. SO, UM, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THIS DELIBERATE AND WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. I'M LOOKING FOR A COMMISSIONER TO MAKE A MOTION OF, UH, ON THIS. YOU CAN READ IT AS PRESENTED AND WE CAN FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THIS THING INTO SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE PASSABLE. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 23 DASH 1 3 0 0 2 0 8, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE A THREE FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY THROAT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 16 FOOT FIVE INCH DRIVEWAY THROAT OR A THREE FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE. OKAY. UH, SO WE ARE GOING WITH THE, UH, THE ONE THAT PUSHES THE, UH, WELL, THE ONE THAT SAVES THE TREE, BASICALLY. YEAH. HE WANTS TO DRIVE ONE, THE DRIVER ONE. SO THAT ONE IS GONNA BE THE, THAT'S THE ONE YOU READ THEN. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO DISCARD THE OR PART TWO, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THREE SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON AN MF 33 ZONED LOT THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. THREE, A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE, FROM THE FRONT ENTRY ORIENTED TO THE PRIMARY STREET TO ALLOW A SIDE DOOR AND FOUR A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH THREE STORIES SITUATED AT 1823 BURNETT STREET, APPLICANT BEING HAAN PROPERTIES L L C BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SO THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY A MINIMUM REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT. DRIVER THROAT LENGTHS FOR VEHICLE CIRCULATION DENSITY ALLOWANCES TO PREVENT OVERCROWDING OF LOTS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. FRONT ENTRY ORIENTATION TO ALLOW FOR PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS TO PREVENT TOWEL RESTRUCTURES IMPOSED ONTO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. STAFF FINDS THESE REQUESTS WILL NOT INFRINGE ON INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOUND IN THE SI IS THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY ABIDING BY THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK DRIVEWAY THROAT REQUIREMENTS THREE SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON AN MF 33 ZONE LOT THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE FOR AN ENTRY ORIENTED TO THE PRIMARY STREET TO ALLOW THE SIDE DOOR AND TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH THREE-STORY A ADJACENT TO A SINGLE FAMILY USES WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS REDUCTION IN LIV LIVABLE SPACE AND PARKING AREAS WOULD BE DRASTICALLY REDUCED. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW IN THIS CASE. THE, THE INTENTION IS FOR SUFFICIENT SPACING BETWEEN STRUCTURES AND PROPERTY LINES. MINIMUM DRIVEWAY THROAT REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE SAFETY AND EFFICIENT TRAFFIC FLOW WITHIN THE PROPERTY, PROVIDING FRONT ENTRY ORIENTATION FOR PROPER PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IN AND OUTTA THE PROPERTY CONTAINMENT OF UNITS WITHIN A SINGLE STRUCTURE. FOR SMALLER PROPERTIES FROM BEING, UH, FROM BECOMING OVERCROWDED AND HIGH RESTRICTIONS TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO LIGHT AND AIR, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL OBSERVE THESE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OF THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVES VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND THEY ALTER THE, AND ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA APPEAR TO NOT ABIDE BY REAR STEPBACK REQUIREMENT. IF GRANTED THE DRIVEWAY THROAT LANES WOULD BE REDUCED, WHICH WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE TRAFFIC FLOW. THE MF 33 ZONED LOT WILL BE ALLOWED TO CONTAIN THREE SEPARATE STRUCTURES AND A LOT THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE, WHICH WON'T INTERFERE WITH [00:55:01] THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR AN ENTRY WILL BE ON THE SIDE, WHICH WILL NOT IMPACT THE COMMUNITY FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THREE STORIES WON'T INFRINGE ON A BUDDING NEIGHBORHOOD, ALL OF WHICH WILL NOT INJURE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX WILL APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH THE VARIANCE OF SAW IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE APPLICANT NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT SPACE ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE PROPOSED USE. THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. ALRIGHT, LOTS TO UNPACK HERE. UM, I AM SUPPORTING THE, UH, THE MOTION AND THEN, UH, THE, UH, THE MOTION AS READ, WHICH BASICALLY PRESERVES THE TREE, UH, SHORTENS THE THROAT OF THE DRIVEWAY, BUT ALLOWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE TREE AND SOME OTHER, UM, YOU KNOW, PLANTING AREAS THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROVO PRO PROMOTING. UH, THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE MOST AFFECTED. NO OPPOSITION. SO I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION COMMISSIONER. ZUNIGA, SAME AS, ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD TO THE CONVERSATION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, UM, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MR. UNI. YES, I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MS. BROWN? NO. MR. MENCHACA CONCUR. MR. DEAN, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. . MS. BENAVIDES I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE SIGN WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES NINE TO TWO. UH, THE, THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED WAS FOR THE DRIVEWAY VARIANCE. OKAY. SO THAT YOU CAN SAVE THAT TREE. OKAY. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET WITH? AND THEN WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER TREE? THEY ALL PASSED. ALL THE OTHER, THE OTHER VARIANCE IS PASSED. OKAY, PERFECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, ITEM THREE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MARK CHAVEZ ZONING PLANNER. THIS CASE, UH, 23 DASH 0 3 0 2 0 9. LOCATED AT TWO 11 WEST SHERIDAN STREET CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT BEING SPECIMEN MANAGEMENT. L L C. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON AN RMM FOUR, BUT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. PRESENTLY ZONED RM FOUR. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG WEST SHERIDAN STREET, SOUTHEAST OF SOUTH FLORIST STREET. CURRENTLY THE LOT HAS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH THE APPLICANT ANTICIPATING ON ADDING A SECOND DWELLING UNIT IN THE REAR YARD WHILE THE SECOND DWELLING IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE RMM FOUR RESIDENTIAL MIX DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON A RMM FOUR LOT THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE PER SECTION 35 DASH THREE 10.06 A ONE MULTI-UNIT CONSTRUCTIONS ON LOTS. ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE IN SIZE OR SMALLER SHALL BE WITHIN A SINGLE STRUCTURE. IT'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SURROUNDING, OH, THAT'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE, ALTERNATE VIEW FROM THE REAR SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON AN R FOUR THAT IS ONE LESS, THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. VARIANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BASED ON THE FINDING FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS. ONE, MAINTAINING DENSITY REQUIREMENTS CAN PREVENT OVERCROWDING ON SMALLER LOTS, PROVIDING PROVIDES OPEN SPACES AND CONTRIBUTES TO A MORE COMFORTABLE AND AESTHETICALLY PLEASING ENVIRONMENT. AND ESTABLISHED SINGLE STRUCTURED NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION PLAN WITH 19 NOTICES. SMELLED OUT ZERO IN FAVOR, 11 IN OPPOSITION. THE KING WILLIAM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT AND WHEN OPPOSED OUTSIDE 200 FEET. THAT CONCLUDES OUR STAFF PRESENCE. OKAY, SO ACTUALLY, THAT'S PUBLIC COMMENT. UH, YEAH. SO BEFORE YOU GO, I WANTED TO ASK IT. YOU HAD, YOU HAD LISTED THAT THE REASONS FOR STAFF'S DENIAL IS THAT YOU WANTED TO MAINTAIN DENSITY ALLOWANCES, BUT RM FOUR ALLOWS ON THIS LOT FOR HIM TO PUT FOUR UNITS, UH, THE APPLICANT TO HAVE FOUR UNITS. THEY'RE ONLY ASKING TO HAVE TWO TOTAL, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO THEY'RE WITHIN THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AND THE, AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS A, IS A, IS A PERMITTED HOME THAT SOMEONE LIVES IN, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE SEE IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? OH, [01:00:02] SO WE'RE NOT GOING ON THE DENSITY OF IT THEN SINCE THEY CAN, IT'S, IT'S SOLELY WHETHER THEY, THEY HAVE TO BE UNDER ONE ROOF OR CAN THEY BE TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS? THAT'S IT, AND TWO SEPARATE ROOFS. YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S A RULE THAT CAME INTO EFFECT JANUARY 1ST. OKAY. AND SO HE CAN HAVE FOUR UNITS TOTAL ON THIS LOT BY RIGHT, RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE UNDER THE SAME ROOF AND HE WOULD OKAY. ATTACHED. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ATTACHED. THEY WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE ATTACHED. HE'S ASKING TO ADD ONLY ONE EXTRA UNIT, BUT HAVE IT BE DETACHED. DETACHED. THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WANNA, YES, SIR. OH, OKAY. COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? NO. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. I WAS A LITTLE BIT VAGUE ON THE WAY HE WAS ADDRESSING THE DENSITY. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY, ANY CITIZEN SIDE OF THE SPEAK? WE HAVE FOUR SPEAKERS AND ONE VOICEMAIL. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HEAR THE VOICEMAIL FIRST. UH, YES, MY, THIS IS, UH, ELISA GMAN. I LIVE AT 7 3 0 SOUTH MAIN, THE ZIP CODE 7 8 2 0 4. AND I'M CALLING IN REGARDS TO CASE, UM, A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 9. AND THIS IS IN REGARDS TO A RESIDENT THAT ACQUIRED A PROPERTY ON ARSENAL STREET THAT IS WANTING TO BUILD A TWO STORY STRUCTURE BEHIND THEIR HOME. UM, I AM NOT OPPOSED, UM, UM, TO THIS, UM, REQUEST. UM, AS A NEIGHBOR, I FEEL LIKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS ALREADY UNDERGONE TOO MANY CHANGES. UM, WE'VE HAD SOME NEW, UM, STRUCTURES GONE UP. OUR TAXES KEEP GOING UP. AND ALSO THIS IS GONNA BE TRULY AN INVASION OF MY NEIGHBOR'S, UM, PRIVACY, THE ONES THAT, UH, DEBBIE AND DIANE TURNON THAT LIVE, UM, RIGHT. UM, NEXT OR BEHIND THIS NEW STRUCTURE, IT'S GONNA ELIMINATE THEIR PRIVACY. UM, ALSO, YOU KNOW, NOT SURE WHY THEY'RE WANTING TO BUILD A SEPARATE STRUCTURE. THERE'S A LOT OF AIRBNBS THAT ARE GOING UP IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND, UM, THAT IS ONLY GONNA, UM, INCREASE OUR PROPERTY TAXES. SO AS A RESIDENT, AS A LONG TERM RESIDENT, I'VE BEEN HERE OVER 40 YEARS. I'M DEEPLY OPPOSED TO THIS NEW NEIGHBOR TRYING TO BUILD A TWO STAR, A TWO STORY STRUCTURE ON THE EXISTING PROPERTY. MY NUMBER ONCE AGAIN IS 2 1 0 5 8 5 6 8 2 0. EVERYONE'S GOOD FOR YOU. UH, SO JUST LEMME KNOW. I'LL SEND YOU AN EMAIL HERE IN A COUPLE MINUTES. THANK YOU. IS THAT MEKO? SORRY, I THINK IT IS OUR WEBEX. JUST A SECOND. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, LET'S SEE, WHO'S THE FIRST SPEAKER SIGNED UP? UH, WE HAVE MS. DIANE TERAN, FOLLOWED BY JOHN ANNE. HELLO. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. IF YOU COULD JUST, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS. SURE. MY NAME IS DIANE TERAN. UM, AND I WANNA THANK YOU ALL FOR THE TIME THIS AFTERNOON. UM, MY SISTER DEBORAH AND I ARE THE HOMEOWNERS AND HAVE LIVED AT 7 27 SOUTH MAIN AVENUE FOR OVER 22 YEARS. WE ARE THE PROPERTY THAT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT, UM, TO TWO 11 WEST SHERIDAN. SO OUR ENTIRE BACKYARD BACK FENCE, UM, BUTTS UP TO TWO 11 WEST SHERIDAN. UM, AND WE ADAMANTLY OPPOSE THEIR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON AN RMM FOUR PROPERTY THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE, ALLOWING FOR PRIMARILY PARKING. AND A TWO STORY STRUCTURE ON THAT PROPERTY WOULD FOREVER CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE AND ACCESS OF OUR PRIVACY. WE ARE VERY WELL AWARE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL TWO STORY HOMES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, HOWEVER, MOST OF THOSE HAVE STOOD FOR OVER A CENTURY. UM, AND IF SOMEBODY CHOOSES TO LIVE NEXT TO THEM, AGAIN, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE. HOWEVER, WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE IN THIS. IT WOULD BE PUT UPON US. WE ALSO THINK ABOUT THE BURDEN OF COST, TIME, AND STRESS THAT WE IN OUR NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE TO ENDURE IF WE HAVE TO RESPOND TO THIS PRIVACY ISSUE. AND AGAIN, BECAUSE WE ARE HISTORIC AS WELL. SO WE KNOW WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE, HIS HISTORIC BOARD TO DO THAT. UM, WE'VE SEEN NUMEROUS MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES BEING BUILT AROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE ARE OPEN TO PROGRESS AND CHANGE, BUT NOT WHEN IT DIRECTLY IMPACTS OUR ESTABLISHED FAMILIES AND HOMES. AND I DO WANNA SHARE, I DID HEAR NOBODY'S LIVING CURRENTLY IN THAT PROPERTY. UM, IT IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. UM, BUT THE HOMEOWNER, THE PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT IT, THERE'S NOBODY LIVING IN THERE RIGHT NOW. UM, WE'VE ENJOYED AND WORK HARD TO PRESERVE THE QUIET, TRANQUIL, AND HISTORIC AUTHENTICITY OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE HOPE THAT YOU LISTEN TO US AND ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE WRITTEN, WHO ARE HERE TODAY, UM, THAT ARE OPPOSED. AND I KNOW THAT SOME ARE GONNA SPEAK, BUT I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO STAND THAT'S HERE, ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS THAT ARE OPPOSED, [01:05:01] SO THAT YOU CAN SEE. AND AGAIN, THAT'S NOT EVERYBODY I KNOW THAT'S ON THERE THAT, UM, THAT TURNED IN THE PAPERWORK. WE ALSO HOPE THAT YOU DO NOT SET A PRECEDENT BY ALLOWING THIS VARIANCE TO HAPPEN FOR AN ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE MONEYMAKING VENTURE, NOT GENUINE COMMUNITY FABRIC. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, MR. CHAIRMAN. YES. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? OKAY. UH, BEFORE WE HEAR THE NEXT SPEAKER, WHAT IS THE COMMISSIONER QUESTION? YES, SIR. UH, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HEAR THE APPLICANT FIRST. UH, WE CAN, WE CAN HEAR. WE, IT DOESN'T MATTER. OKAY. UH, BUT I'M, I'VE DECIDED TO DO IT THIS WAY. UM, COULD, THAT WAS MY QUESTIONING. YEAH. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, MA'AM, BEFORE YOU WALK AWAY YES, MA'AM. UM, YOU'RE SAYING, UM, HE WANTS TO BUILD TWO, TWO APARTMENTS IN THE BACK. WOULD YOU BE AGREEABLE UPON ONE? I MEAN, HONESTLY, THAT'S NOT, I I WOULD NOT, I MEAN, AGAIN, I WE'VE SEEN SO MUCH. IF YOU DON'T, IF THERE ARE SOME OF THE FEATURES, GUADALUPE STREET IS ADJACENT. SO ON FLORES GUADALUPE, WHERE THE NEW SAN PEDRO CREEK, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT'S A POPULAR THING RIGHT NOW. RIGHT. THERE'S LITERALLY UNITS THAT HAVE GONE UP THERE THAT ARE FOR, THAT ARE MULTI-FAMILY. WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS FOR YEARS. AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED, BUT THAT IS FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM US. THIS IS, THIS IS WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORS. THIS IS OUR HOMES. THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. SO, I MEAN, I WOULD NOT REALLY WANT, IF I DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, THEN I DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. AND YOU ALL VOTE. BUT I, I DON'T, I I MEAN, WE WOULD ASK THAT THERE'D BE A SINGLE FAMILY LIVING IN THAT RESIDENCE, UM, NOT FOR AGAIN, A MONEYMAKING, YOU KNOW, VENTURE. UM, BECAUSE MOST OF THOSE THAT ARE COMING UP NOW ARE PRIMARILY THOSE NOT, THOSE ARE NOT PEOPLE THAT ARE RENOVATING TO LIVE, THEY'RE RENOVATING TO RENT OUT OR, YOU KNOW, MULTI-FAMILY. SO, SO, SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, UM, THERE'S, THERE'S RM FOUR IS A PREDOMINANT ZONING FOR THE AREA. MM-HMM. , DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE MORE THAN ONE UNIT ON THEIR LOT? NO. NO. OKAY. I'M JUST CURIOUS. YEAH, THE CLOSEST HAS BEEN, I SAW YOU, THE MOST RECENT HAS BEEN ON GUADALUPE. BUT AGAIN, THERE, THERE ARE NO RESIDENCES OVER THERE. THEY'VE RENOVATED THE JUDSON LOFTS, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THAT. BUT THAT IS FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM US. THOSE ARE NOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS THAT ARE NEAR THERE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS SPEAKER? UH, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA ONE, ONE OF THEM IS ALREADY BUILT. OKAY. SO THIS, SO ON THIS CASE, THIS I'M, I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A QUICK CLARIFICATION. THERE IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THIS LOT. THIS LOT IS ON R FOUR BY RIGHT. THEY COULD HAVE FOUR UNITS. IT JUST HAS TO BE UNDER ONE ROOF BECAUSE IT'S A THIRD OF AN ACRE. HE COULD, HE COULD ADD THREE MORE UNITS TO THE BACK OF THIS HOUSE RIGHT NOW AND NOBODY CAN STOP IT. WELL, WHAT I'M SAYING, SO IT, IT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS. THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE IT TO BE A DETACHED BUILDING. HE CAN PUT THREE MORE RIGHT NOW IF HE WANTS, BUT IT CAN'T BE DETACHED. WHAT I HEARD, YOU KNOW, UH, THE OTHER COMMISSIONER SAYS TWO BILLS. IT, IT'S NOT, THERE'S ALREADY ONE. THERE'S ALREADY ONE. THEY'RE NOT GONNA BILL TWO IS IT? THEY'RE GONNA BILL, THEY THE, THE YES. THE APPLICATION IS FOR ONE ADDITIONAL DET. EXACTLY. NOT FOR TWO. THAT'S CORRECT. SO, YEAH. THANK YOU. THAT WAS JUST A CORRECT. OKAY. LET'S HEAR THE NEXT SPEAKER. WE HAVE MR. JOHN TARRAN AND THEN FOLLOWED BY NAOMI NAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES. I WANT, FIRST OF ALL, I THANK YOU ALL FOR, UH, LETTING ME SPEAK TODAY. CAN YOU, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR SIR? OH, I'M SORRY. MY NAME IS JOHNNY THERON. THANK YOU. AND I'M HERE WITH MY WIFE. UH, MY WIFE AND I ARE THE OWNERS AND LIVE AT 7 29 SOUTH MAIN AVENUE. OUR HOME IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO TWO 11 WEST SHERIDAN STREET, WHICH HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE. THE BACK OF OUR PROPERTY DIRECTLY MEETS UP WITH THAT PROPERTY. WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST OF THIS VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON A R M FOUR PROPERTY THAT IS LESS THAN ONE ON ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. THIS TWO STORY MULTIFAMILY REQUESTED STRUCTURE WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY, UH, EXCUSE ME, IMPACT OUR PRIVACY DUE TO THE UNEXPECTED NOISE LEVEL AND CONGESTION. WE RECENTLY BUILT OUR NEW HOME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE PAST, WITHIN THE PAST YEAR BECAUSE WE ENJOY THE QUIET, FRIENDLY, AND HISTORIC ORIGINALITY. OUR HOPE IN BUILDING THIS HOME AND MOVING INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS THAT IT IS THE LAST HOME WE WILL LIVE IN. WE HAVE ENJOYED OUR TIME SO FAR DUE TO THE WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS WE HAVE BEEN CON WHO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND TRULY LOVED AND RESPECT THE COMMUNITY WE LIVE IN. WE DO NOT HAVE THE CONFIDENCE THAT THESE INVESTORS HAVE OURS AND OUR AND OURS NEIGHBORS BEST INTEREST IN MIND. WE ASK THAT YOU LISTEN TO OUR VOTERS, OUR VOICES, AND THOSE [01:10:01] OF OUR NEIGHBORS WHO ARE ALL OPPOSED TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AND DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THEN WE HAVE, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? NOPE. YOU HEARING NONE? LET'S HAVE THE NEXT SPEAKER COME UP PLEASE. THANK YOU, MS. NAOMI NAI AND THEN FOLLOWED BY MS. HEIDI ANDO. HI EVERYBODY. THANK YOU FOR LETTING US SPEAK AND, UM, I'M NAOMI NYE. UH, MY HUSBAND MICHAEL AND I ARE THE OWNERS AND HAVE LIVED AT 8 0 6 SOUTH MAINE FOR 43 YEARS. OUR PROPERTY IS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THIS PROPERTY THAT HAS REQUESTED THE VARIANCE. UH, WHILE WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL TO THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY FOR RENOVATING THE LONGSTANDING STRUCTURE, WHICH YOU SAW A PICTURE OF, UH, WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON THAT. A LOT THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. THERE ARE MORE THAN 250 SINGLE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTS LIVING IN SINGLE HOMES ON SOUTH MAINE CITY, ARSENAL SUITE, DANIEL AND RISHI STREETS RIGHT HERE. OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE WORKED SO HARD FOR 43 YEARS TO KEEP THIS NEIGHBORHOOD INTACT. WE NEGOTIATED WITH SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY ON SOUTH FLORES TO CREATE A PARK INSTEAD OF WAREHOUSES. WE WORKED WITH A PIONEER FLOWER MILL WHEN THEY TRIED TO BUY UP ALL THE HOUSES ON THAT END OF THE STREET, UH, FOR NOTHING THAT WE STILL CAN SEE. THEY GOT ONLY HALF OF THEM. AND, UH, THERE'S STILL NOTHING THERE. WE REPEATEDLY STOPPED DOCTORS, ATTORNEYS, AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO TRIED TO CHANGE OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONING ON SOUTH MAINE AVENUE TO COMMERCIAL. WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS A VERY OLD AND SIGNIFICANT PLACE. THIS PROPOSED CHANGE IN VARIANCE IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, MS. I I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. YES. WE HAVE A, A QUESTION FROM THE COMMISSION. UH, COMMISSIONER. HI. SO MY QUESTION, HELLO. UM, SO THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION WAS IN SUPPORT OF IT. WAS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE GROUP OR WHAT, WHAT WAS THE DIALOGUE THAT WENT THROUGH KING WILLIAM? I'M ACTUALLY SHOCKED THAT THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF IT. WE'RE IN SHOCK. OKAY. WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT UNTIL WE SAW IT UP HERE. OKAY. YEAH. SINCE THEY WEREN'T WITHIN 200 FEET, UM, WE DID NOT HAVE, I DID NOT HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AND I DON'T KNOW. NO. AND IT WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD BY US THAT THEY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. OKAY. YEAH, I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET SOME FEEDBACK. YEAH. THANK YOU OUTTA THAT. NO, WE'RE VERY SURPRISED BY THAT. OKAY. OKAY. VASQUEZ, COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? YES. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION, UH, FOR THE SPEAKER? UH, UH, THE LOCATION OF WHERE YOU, YOUR PROPERTY IS AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. YES. IS IT CONSIDERED KING? IS THAT CONSIDER CONSIDERED KING WILLIAMS? WELL, WE CONSIDER IT THE ARSENAL HISTORIC RESIDENCE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, IT'S NOT OFFICIALLY KING WILLIAMS BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS ON THIS SIDE OF THE RIVER HAVE TRADITIONALLY VOTED NOT TO BE PART OF THE OFFICIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT BECAUSE OF TAX ISSUES SO FORTH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BUT THE PROPERTY THAT OUR KIND NEIGHBORS HAVE RENOVATED WAS A VERY HISTORIC OLD HOUSE IN A VERY OLD NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. LET'S HAVE THE NEXT SPEAKER COME UP PLEASE. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS HEIDI HANDO. UM, THANKS FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. UM, MY HUSBAND AND I OWN 7 23 SOUTH MAIN AVENUE, WHICH SHARES A PROPERTY LINE WITH TWO 11 SHERIDAN. UM, WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THE CURRENT ZONING PROVISIONS TO BE WAIVED FOR THE HOMEOWNERS, UM, TO BUILD AN ADDITIONAL TWO STORY LOT ON THEIR, UM, BUILDING ON THEIR LOT. UM, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT WOULD OVERSHADOW INTO OUR BACKYARD AND IT WOULD INFRINGE ON OUR PRIVACY. UM, WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE 15 YEARS AGO AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT CHANGE IS INEVITABLE. UM, BUT THIS, UH, CIRCUMSTANCE, WHICH I ACTUALLY HAVEN'T HEARD YET BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO HEAR THE APPLICANT SPEAK YET. BUT, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT, THEIR REASON FOR WANTING TO DO THIS, BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THAT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD CHANGE THE CURRENT PROVISION. UM, AND I KNOW THINKING ABOUT RAIN AND FLOODING RIGHT NOW SEEMS FAR OFF, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT AN ADDITIONAL THE DR LIKE THE DRIVEWAYS AS SEPARATE STRUCTURE TAKING DOWN TREES WOULD DO TO THE, UM, DRAINAGE IN OUR BACKYARD AND OUR SURROUNDING NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. UM, AND THEN LASTLY, JUST FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD PERSPECTIVE, [01:15:01] I THINK PARKING IS AN ISSUE 'CAUSE THERE'S NOT PARKING ON THE SHERIDAN, LIKE SIDE OF, UM, ON THEIR SIDE OF THE STREET, AND THERE JUST WOULDN'T REALLY BE ANY OVERFLOW PARKING FOR HOWEVER MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE LIVING THERE. UM, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. I MIGHT HAVE TO LEAVE EARLY TO PICK UP MY KIDS, SO I'M SORRY IF I, UM, SCREWED OUTTA HERE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. NO QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, HEARING. LET'S HAVE THE NEXT SPEAKER COME UP. THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP PLEASE. I WANTED THE, THE, THE CITIZEN SIDE WOULD SPEAK TO BE HEARD FIRST SO THAT YOU COULD TAKE THEIR CONCERNS AND PART OF YOUR APPLICANT AND PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION. AND JUST SO THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF HEAR MORE OF A FULL PICTURE. SO PLEASE PROCEED, SIR. YES, SIR. CARLOS BECK IS, AND MY WIFE LILLIAN, WE'RE THE PROUD OWNERS OF THIS 1920 SINGLE FAMILY HOME. WE'RE RENOVATING IT, IT'S COMING OUT BE BEAUTIFULLY. WE'VE BEEN IN THIS ROOM SEVERAL TIMES WITH HISTORIC, UM, AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO WORK WITH THE GROUP REAL WELL. EVEN THE NEIGHBORS, WE'VE, UH, HAD SOME COMMUNICATION WITH THEM. VERY NICE PEOPLE. UH, WE HAD PROBLEMS WITH, UM, INDIGENOUS PEOPLE GOING INTO THE LOT. SO WE SPOKE WITH, UM, SAFE AND THEY HELPED US OUT. IT'S BEEN A GOOD EXPERIENCE SO FAR. NOW EVERYTHING SEEMED TO BE GOING BEAUTIFULLY UNTIL I RECEIVED AN EMAIL LAST WEEK WHERE, WHERE IT SAID THAT MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS WERE OPPOSING THIS PLAN. UM, THERE WAS A WRENCH IN THE ENGINE. WE HAD NO IDEA THAT THERE WAS SO ANIMOSITIES AGAINST THE PROJECT. BUT NOW, UH, BACK TO WHAT MR. ORIEN, UH, JUST SAID. I, I WANNA CLARIFY SOMETHING HERE. AND ACTUALLY I WANT ASK THIS. I WANNA MAKE A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. EXACTLY. ARE WE IN OUR RIGHT TO EXTEND THIS STRUCTURE AND ADD ANOTHER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET? SO YOU, YOURS, ZONE R FOUR, YOU ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT TO HAVE UP TO FOUR UNITS. THE ONLY ISSUE AT BAY IS THAT ON JANUARY ONE, THEY MADE IT TO, TO WHERE IF YOUR LOT'S UNDER A THIRD OF AN ACRE, YOU THEY HAVE TO BE, THEY HAVE TO BE UNDER ONE ROOF SO THAT YOU COULD EXTEND YOUR STRUCTURE AND GET UP TO FOUR UNITS IF YOU SO DESIRE. BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BE DETACHED. UH, THERE'S PARKING RULES THAT WOULD APPLY, WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS. THERE'S ALSO, IF CORRECT ME, UM, I THINK ALSO IN JANUARY THERE'S A 65% IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT ON AN ARM FOUR ZONING THAT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE ADHERED TO. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO, YEAH, SO THAT, THAT CAME INTO EFFECT JANUARY ONE. PERFECT. SO WHEN WE HEARD THAT THIS NEW RULE, UM, WE ASKED FOR A VARIANCE, THE VARIANCE IS SPECIFICALLY WITH THE WORD DETACHED. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING. SO, AND TO EVERYBODY HERE IN THIS ROOM, I WANNA SAY IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, THAT WE ARE IN A RIGHT TO BUILD ANOTHER BUILDING TWO STORY IN THE BACK ATTACHED. NO, ATTACHED. ATTACHED. SORRY. YES, ATTACHED. YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. OKAY. SO THE DENSITY, WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO IT. THAT'S CORRECT. THE HEIGHT WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO IT, YES. THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS WELL, WITHIN THE 50% THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET ONLY. SO JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR WITH EVERYBODY HERE PRESENT, THE REASON WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE IS BECAUSE IN OUR EYES IT IS AESTHETICALLY BETTER TO DO IT DETACHED. OTHERWISE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE SHOTGUN HOMES. THIS WOULD LOOK TERRIBLE. WOULD YOU PLEASE PUT THIS UP LITTLE DIAGRAM HERE IF WE DID IT ATTACHED AS OPPOSED TO DETACHED? LOOK AT HOW IT WOULD LOOK. CAN I USE YOUR POINTER? IT WOULD LOOK LIKE A HUGE, LONG BUILDING OF WHO LIVES IN THERE. IT WOULD LOOK TERRIBLE. SO WHAT, WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS THIS SEPARATION HERE OF ALMOST 19 FEET BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS. THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE, THE ONLY VARIANCE THAT WE'RE REQUESTING. YES. THAT'S IT. SO, UM, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? YES. UH, COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA? YEP. CONSIDERING THE CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW, DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOUR REQUEST FOR A, A VARIANCE INTO ONE BUILDING WITHOUT DETACHMENT RIGHT NOW? OR NOT? I'M, COULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT THAT? YEAH, YOU WERE SAYING THAT YOU COULD, UH, ATTACH THE BUILDING. DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT NOW, OR, OH, NO, HE CAN DO THAT WITHOUT US. HE DOESN'T NEED AFTER THAT EXACTLY. THE, IF I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY, SIR, I WOULD NOT EVEN NEED TO CHANGE IT OR ASK ANYTHING BECAUSE I ALREADY HAVE THAT BY. RIGHT. SO WHAT I'M ONLY ASKING IS TO NOT HAVE WALLS BETWEEN THOSE TWO BUILDINGS. OKAY. THAT'S THE ONLY THING I'M ASKING. SO, SO WE, WE GO FORWARD WITH WHAT YOU REQUESTED. [01:20:01] IS THAT RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN? RIGHT. SO THERE'S NO NEED TO SPEAK ABOUT OTHER THINGS WHEN WE GET, WHEN WE CAN ZERO IN AND DIRECTLY. SO YEAH, THIS IS THE, THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT IF, IF THIS GETS APPROVED, HE CAN HAVE TWO UNITS UNDER TWO ROOFS, OR IF IT DOESN'T GET APPROVED, HE'LL HAVE TO JUST EXTEND THE BUILDING, GO UP TO FOUR UNITS IF HE WANTS. AND IT, IT LOOK, BUT THE QUESTION FOR STAFF, IF THE, IF, UH, WHEN THIS GOES TO DELIBERATION, CAN A, CAN A COMMISSIONER READ THE MOTION SUCH THAT IT'S, IT'S FOR A, UM, UM, A SEPARATE STRUCTURE FOR ONE UNIT SO THAT HE COULDN'T PUT THREE UNITS IN THERE? THE, THE ZONING ITSELF ALLOWS THREE UNITS. SO THE ONLY THING YOU'RE CONSIDERING TODAY IS WHETHER THE UNITS ARE ATTACHED OR DETACHED. AND SEE, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I WANNA MAKE SURE THIS COMMISSION'S CLEAR, IS THAT HE CAN HAVE FOUR UNITS. HE CAN TAKE HIS EXISTING HOME AND PUT THREE IN THERE AND ADD ANOTHER ONE IN THE BAG. THERE'S, HE, HE, HOWEVER HE WANTS TO ATTAIN THIS, THIS IS ABOUT WHETHER IT'S A DETACHED STRUCTURE. MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT I WOULD HATE TO ALLOW HIM TO PUT A DETACHED STRUCTURE AND THEN PUT TWO OR THREE UNITS IN THERE, BECAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, THERE'S A REASON WHY THEY WANT IT UNDER ONE ROOF JUST BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, ON A SMALLER LOT, IT'S THAT YOU NEED THE SPACE. I MEAN, YOU GOTTA HAVE ROOM FOR PARKING AND WHATNOT. SO IT JUST SEEMS TO ME LIKE THAT WE COULD READ THE MOTION TO, TO LIMIT IT TO A SINGLE UNIT. BRAGMAN. YES. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN FOR THE APPLICANT. SO THE DETACHED STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE PLANNING ON BUILDING, IS THAT GONNA BE, IT'S TWO STORIES. IS THAT GONNA BE TWO SEPARATE UNITS WITHIN THAT? NO. SO THAT, THAT DETOX STRUCTURE, YOU'RE PLANNING ON JUST BEING ONE FAMILY OR YES. ONE OCCUPANT. IT'S NOT GONNA BE TWO SEPARATE. CORRECT. OKAY. SO COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER MANCHACA, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. THAT WAS THE, THE ISSUE HERE IS HOW MANY FAMILIES FOR DENSITY WISE? ONE FAMILY, ONE UNIT? YES. TWO STORIES? YES. OKAY. UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. OKAY. UH, SO THE FIRST HOME THAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT A PICTURE OF, SO ARE YOU GONNA BE LIVING IN THERE OR YOU ARE GONNA BE RENTING IT OUT ALSO? WE HAVEN'T DECIDED WHO, UH, IT'S GONNA BE EITHER US OR MY DAUGHTER. OKAY. SO WE HAVE DECIDED IF SHE'S GONNA TAKE THE BACK UNIT OR THE FRONT UNIT, THE, THE FRONT UNIT. SO YOU'RE JUST REQUESTING ANOTHER UNIT. OKAY. THANK YOU BRAGMAN. MR. BRAGMAN. SO A FOLLOW UP. SO BOTH OF THESE STRUCTURES ARE INTENDED FOR FAMILY USE ONLY. YOU'RE NOT PLANNING ON RENTING OUT ONE OF THE UNITS? NOPE. OKAY, THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. COMMISSIONER BRAGG, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DON'T LIVE IN THE PROPERTY AND YOU WANTING TO BUILD AN AIRBNB NO. IN YOUR BACKYARD? NO, WE DON'T LIVE THERE BECAUSE WE'RE STILL RENOVATING IT. WE'RE JUST GONNA BE DONE PROBABLY A MONTH FROM NOW. AND WHEN WE FINISH, THEN, UH, EITHER US OR, OR OUR DAUGHTER, WE HAVEN'T DECIDED THAT YET. AND THEN WE'LL BUILD THE OTHER ONE IN THE BACK. WELL, HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT OF, USUALLY IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, THEY HAVE TWO, TWO STRUCTURES, ONE IN THE FRONT AND ONE AT 40% LESS CALLED A CASITA. IT USED TO BE LIKE A MOTHER-IN-LAW TYPE SUITE. HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED THAT? NO. UH, WHEN WE DISCUSS IT WITH HISTORIC AND WITH THIS OFFICE HERE WITH EVERYBODY, UH, THAT WAS NOT, UM, SOMETHING THAT CAME UP. IT WAS JUST THE SIZE. WE CAN CALL IT CA WE CAN CALL IT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, WE CAN CALL IT WHATEVER. IT'S JUST GONNA BE UP, UM, IN OUR HEADS. RIGHT. 30 BY 32 STORY. ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. OH, NO, I, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M LISTENING, BUT I'M, I'M NOT LISTENING BECAUSE I, I KNOW WHAT PEOPLE DO TO PROPERTY AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT THIS FOR RENTAL INCOME AND YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE LIVING THERE AT ALL. NOPE, IT'S NOT THE CASE. OKAY. SO CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF. IF THIS APPLICANT WERE TO WANT AN A D D U IN THEIR REAR YARD UNDER AN RMM FOUR AND LIMIT IT TO THE 40%, COULD THEY DO SO AND HAVE IT BE DETACHED? CORRECT. YES, THEY COULD. SO IF YOU WANTED TO, YOU COULD BUILD A DETACHED STRUCTURE WITH A 40% SIZE LIMIT. I THINK IT'S 800 SQUARE FEET MAX. IT'S NOW 1600 SQUARE FEET. 1600. SO YOU COULD BUILD SOMETHING, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD, IT WOULDN'T BE CONS. IT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU COULD RENT OUT, BUT YOU COULD DO THAT NOW WITHOUT US. UH, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, UM, THAT'S FINE BY US BECAUSE WE'RE NOT INTENDING TO RENT IT. OKAY. I MEAN, I WAS SAYING IF YOUR MOTION FAILS, YOU CAN STILL GO BUILD A SEPARATE UNIT. YOU JUST COULDN'T RENT IT OUT. I HEAR YOU. ALL RIGHT. UM, ANY OTHER CUS COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, FOR STAFF. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF AT, UM, UH, THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT, UH, WAS UM, VERY ELOQUENT IN, IN ASKING A QUESTION REFERENCE. UH, WHAT RIGHTS DID HE HAVE? AND, AND OF COURSE, UH, THE, THE ANSWER WAS GIVEN, BUT I MYSELF AM AM TRYING TO COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE [01:25:01] RIGHTS OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THE RIGHTS OF, OF, OF, UH, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE MOST ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. COULD YOU PLEASE COMMENT ON WHAT RIGHTS THE, THIS NEIGHBORS HAVE? SURE. UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROPERTIES THAT SURROUND IT ARE ALSO ZONED, UH, MF R EXCUSE ME, R M FOUR. AND SO THAT MEANS THAT THEY ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD UP TO FOUR UNITS IN ONE STRUCTURE ON THEIR PROPERTIES CURRENTLY. OKAY. ANY, ANY ? I I TAKE THAT, THAT, THAT IS THE ANSWER. ? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. RIGHT. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. UM, IS THERE ANYTHING I'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE DELIBERATE? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. SO WHAT WE HAVE, UH, BEFORE US AS A REQUEST TO HAVE, UM, HE CAN DO FOUR UNITS, BUT IT'S THE REQUEST IS THAT WHETHER HE CAN HAVE IT AS A SEPARATE BUILDING. UM, AND, UH, I, IF THERE'S A COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, UM, READ IT JUST THE WAY IT IS THEN, HOWEVER YOU FEEL FIT. I MEAN, BECAUSE WE CAN'T ADD, WE CAN'T LIMIT IT TO ONE UNIT, WHICH WAS A CONCERN OF MINE. BUT, UH, SO I GUESS YOU COULD READ IT AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. OKAY. I'LL GO AHEAD AND GIVE IT A TRY. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 23 103 0 2 9, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON AN RMM FOUR THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE SITUATED AT TWO 11 WEST SHERIDAN STREET. APPLICANT BEING BEING SENT MANAGEMENT L L C BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED BY DENSITY REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT OVERCROWDING ON SMALLER LOTS. STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE APPLICANT IS ABIDING BY ALL OTHER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WILL NOT INFRINGE ON SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE PORTIONMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS. THE SPECIAL CONDITION ON THIS PROPERTY IS THAT THE LOT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE, WHICH PREVIOUSLY DID NOT REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT TO BE WITHIN A SINGLE STRUCTURE. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN THE APPLICANT ALTER THEIR PLANS TO ABIDE BY THE RECENTLY CHANGED U D C REQUIREMENT. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. STAFF FINDS THE SPIRIT WILL BE OBSERVED AS THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABIDING BY ALL OTHER BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND HAS NOT BEGUN CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONALLY, THIS WILL ALLOW FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT OR OF A VACANT REAR LOT FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE RM FOUR ZONE LOT WILL BE ALLOWED TO CONTAIN TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON A LOT THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES AS THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING. DISTRICTS. SIX, APPLIED OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND, UH, AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS SUPPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON A PROPERTY SUCH AS A LOT BEING LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF ACRE. THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER CRUZ, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. WELL, I'M CONSIDERING ALL THE OPTIONS AND I SEE LOTS OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS MOTION EVEN THOUGH I READ IT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BREGMAN? UH, I'M GONNA AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I THINK THAT THERE ARE OPTIONS AVAILABLE [01:30:01] FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, THAT WON'T BE QUITE AS DISRUPTIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING HIS DEVELOPMENT OF TWO OR THREE PROPERTIES WHEN HE COULD PUT A CASITA BACK THERE IF HE'S GONNA BE LIVING IN IT, BUT IT, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S HIS INTENTION. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? UH, YES SIR. UH, COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I WILL, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING, UH, THIS, UH, UH, APPLICANT. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? YES. ZUNIGA? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA? I'LL NOT BE SUPPORTED. ALL RIGHT. UM, AND I'M GOING TO, I'M NOT IN SUPPORT, ALTHOUGH I THINK THIS ONE'S AN ODD ONE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS, THIS IS SUCH A NEW CODE, UH, AND WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXISTING HOME, SOMETIMES IT'S EASIER JUST TO BUILD A, A SECOND ONE. AND IF THEY, AND IF YOU BUILT ONE THAT WAS DETACHED, IT'D BE PROBABLY LESS, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER BECAUSE IT'D BE MORE DIFFICULT TO HIT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT HAVING TO MAKE SOMETHING SMALLER. AND HE'S SURROUNDED BY A SARAH HA UH, THE, UH, SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY HEADQUARTERS. SA HE SAHA HEADQUARTERS. I MEAN THIS, I HAD A TOUGH ONE ON THIS, BUT, UH, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SIDE WITH THE, UH, ENORMOUS, UH, AMOUNT OF NEIGHBORING, UH, RESIDENTS WHO ARE AGAINST IT. SO WITH THAT WAS A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. I JUST WANNA CLARIFY REAL QUICK TOO, UH, JUST FOR THE RECORD. UM, THE NEW CODE IS 50%. AND SO BASED ON HIS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 926 SQUARE FEET FOR THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE, UM, HALF OF THAT IS ONLY 400 AND SOMETHING. BUT, UM, PER THE NEW CODE, THE MAX HE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO FOR A CASITA OR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WOULD BE 800 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S WHAT I RECALL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. MS. CRUZ, I DO NOT CONCUR MS. BRAGMAN. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. SPIELMAN. I DO NOT CONCUR MS. BROWN. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. MANCHACA DO NOT CONCUR MR. DEAN. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINAL FACT. MS. EZ. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. OZUNA. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I DO NOT CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I DO NOT CONCUR. UH, MOTION FAILS. ZERO TO 11. UH, SO SIR, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU GET WITH STAFFS, BUT AS WE HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, YOU CAN ADD UP TO THREE UNITS AS LONG AS IT'S ATTACHED TO YOUR CURRENT ONE OR YOU CAN ADD AN 800 SQUARE FOOT MAX, UH, CASITA IN THE REAR. UH, THANK YOU. ITEM FOUR. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, ITEM NUMBER FOUR, BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 0. UH, LOCATED AT 30 37 11 PIPER'S CROSS THREE. AND COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER SIX. UM, APPLICANT BEING SHANNON, A REQUEST FOR A ONE A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE 14 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY TO INCLUDE A ONE FOOT OVERHANG. UM, CURRENT ZONING IS, UM, R SIX, UM, CASE SUMMARY. SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A CORNER, LOT OF PIPER'S CROSS STREET AND PIPER SWAN. IT CONTAINS SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING GRANTING THE REAR REAR VARIANCE WILL ALLOW IN ADDITION TO BE 14 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND GRANTING THE SIDE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY, ONE FOOT WITH A FOOT OF OVERHANG. UH, THE ADDITION HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND THERE'S CURRENTLY A HOME LOCATED BEHIND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED TO THE, AND THE RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO THAT IS CURRENTLY THE SITE PLAN WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS ON THE PLAN ITSELF. ONE IN THE REAR AND THE ONE CURRENTLY ON THE SIDE. THAT IS SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF. THE LEFT SIDE, UH, ADDITIONAL LOCATION, THE REAR ADDITION LOCATION AND ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF IT AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF FRAGMENTATION FOR THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO O A 23 1 0 300 0 2 1 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. FINANCE OF FACT, THE STRUCTURE HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND THERE'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF SPACE TO COMPLY WITH THE REAR SETBACK TO DEVELOP AN ADDITION. AND THE STRUCTURE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE CHANGING PROPERTIES. AND FOR THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. OF FACT, THE ADDITION WILL BE TOO CLOSE TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE CAUSING POSSIBLE WATER RUNOFF TO THE ADJACENT RUNAWAY RIGHT OF WAY. THERE WERE 33 NOTICES [01:35:01] SENT OUT, UH, THAT THERE WAS ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSITION. AND THE PIPER'S MEADOW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. AND THAT CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SAID THE APPLICANT. COME FORWARD. HI, JUST, UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. HI, MY NAME'S SHANNON LA AND, UM, I WAS ASKING AND REQUESTING FOR ADDITION ON THE BACKSIDE AND THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE TOWARDS THE STREET. UM, CURRENTLY THE SIDING HAS, UH, SEPARATED IN A LOT OF AREAS ON THE BACK AND THE SIDE. SO, UH, WEATHER CONDITIONS AND EVERYTHING HAVE, UM, CAUSED THE PLATES ON THE HOUSE TO HOLD THE BEAMS UP THAT ARE CONNECTED. THE PLATES HERE AND THE BEAMS ARE LIKE THIS ALL THE WAY DOWN AROUND AND THEY'RE ROTTEN. SO THEY'RE, UH, DETERIORATING. YOU TOUCH 'EM, THE TOUCH THE WOOD PLATES 'CAUSE THEY'RE NOT METAL PLATES OR WOOD PLATES. YOU TOUCH 'EM AND THEY FALL APART AS YOU TOUCH 'EM BECAUSE THEY'RE EXPOSED. UM, SO WHEN THE CONTRACTOR CAME OUT TO TALK ABOUT, UH, REPAIRS, UM, THEY TOLD ME THEY HAVE TO LIFT EVERY SINGLE BEAM UP OFF THE GROUND ALL THE WAY AROUND IN ORDER TO GET THAT, UH, BOTTOM PLATE OUT AND PLAY, REPLACE IT WITH NEW PLATE WOOD PLATTING AND THEN REPAIR ALL, UM, ADD MORE BEAMS TO THE, THE AFFECTED WEATHER ONES. 'CAUSE EVEN THE BEAMS ARE DETERIORATING. SO, UM, I WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THEM LIFTING EVERY SINGLE BEAM ALL THE WAY AROUND AND THEN CAUSE THE HOUSE TO FALL. SO I WANTED, UH, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A BETTER OPTION TO DO AN ADDITION. THAT WAY THEY CAN BRACE IT AND THEN KNOCK THE WA THOSE BEAMS DOWN INSTEAD OF HAVING TO LIFT EVERYTHING ONE BY ONE TO GET IT ALL REPAIRED. SO I WAS REQUESTING THAT I HAVE AN ADDITION OF SIX FEET AND THEN AT LEAST FOUR FEET ON THE SIDE TO GET THAT DONE. I DO HAVE, UM, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SETBACKS AND ALL THAT FROM THE WATER LINE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT MY, UH, HOUSE, FROM THE HOUSE TO THE, TO THE, UM, SIDEWALK IS ABOUT, IT'S, IT'S SEVEN FEET AWAY FROM THE FENCE AND THEN THE FENCE IS SEVEN ANOTHER SEVEN FEET AWAY FROM THE SIDEWALK. SO I'M NOT TOO SURE WHAT ALL THAT MEANT ABOUT THE WATER LINE AND STUFF. I KNOW THE WATER LINE IS NOT WITHIN MY FENCE LINE. IT'S AWAY FROM THE, THE FENCE LINE. SO THE, THE, THE, JUST TO ANSWER THAT FOR YOU, THE SIDEWALK IS LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. IT'S AS PART OF THE STREET CROSS SECTION. BUT THE SETBACK THAT WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS IS YOUR SIDE SETBACK THAT'S MEASURED FROM YOUR ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE TO YOUR STRUCTURE. MM-HMM. . OKAY. PROPERTY LINE IS SOMEWHERE BEHIND THAT SIDEWALK, GENERALLY LOCATED WHERE A FENCE WOULD BE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S ABOUT, OH, OKAY. SO THE WATERLINE, BECAUSE I, WHEN Y'ALL MENTIONED WATERLINE, THE WATER TOP WHERE YOU GO CHECK THE WATERS IN THE FRONT, BUT ON THE SIDE WAY CLOSER TO THE, TO THE SIDE SIDEWALK. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WATERLINE IS, WHY THAT'S BEING REFERENCED , BUT, UM, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE NORMALLY TALK ABOUT . OH, OKAY. I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY SOMETHING ABOUT MR. CHAIRMAN. YES. COMMISSIONER . WHAT, UH, THE CHAIRMAN'S TALKING ABOUT, IT'S NOT THE WATERLINE, IT'S A WATER THAT DRIPS OFF, UH, THE ROOF. YEAH. OH, OKAY. . AND, UH, YEAH, IT, IT, AND, UH, AS I WAS SAYING IT, IT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW THE, IF YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD THE SCHEDULE OR WHATEVER, WE COULD LOOK AT IT, BUT IT, HOW IT RAINS OFF ON THE BACK, IT'S OKAY. BUT ON THE SIDE I WENT BY THERE, UH, IT MIGHT RANGE TO THE STREET. SO SOME PEOPLE PUT PROTECTION AS SUCH AS, UH, GUTTERS IN THERE AND OTHER, AND YOU KNOW, THE CHAIRMAN WILL GUIDE YOU. OH, OKAY. WELL LET, LET'S SEE IF, IS THERE ANY OTHER, UM, PARTS OF YOUR PRESENTATION YOU'D LIKE TO COMPLETE BEFORE WE ASK, START ASKING QUESTIONS OR, UM, I GUESS I HAVE THE, THEY HAVE THE PICTURES, BUT I WAS ALSO GONNA ASK 'CAUSE I DIDN'T THINK UNTIL I STARTED HEARING EVERYBODY TALK AND STUFF. UM, IF I DECIDED THAT I NEEDED BECAUSE OF, UM, THE WEATHER HITS, THE SUN HITS THE BACK OF MY HOUSE REALLY BAD AND THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE DAY. AND THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING ALL THE, THE ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THIS IS THROUGHOUT THE YEARS OF HAD THE HOME, UM, IF I DECIDED TO GET LIKE, NOT A, I DON'T HOW TO CALL IT A, NOT A PORCH, BUT SOMETHING THAT OVERHANGS AS A PORCH AWNING, LIKE YEAH. SOMETHING TO BLOCK THE SUN FROM HITTING. ONCE I GET IT REPAIRED OR FIXED OR WHATEVER, IS THAT ALLOWABLE OR IF I HAVE TO GO, COME AGAIN AND GET IT, OR YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T CONSTRUCT ANYTHING OF PERMANENCE WITHIN THOSE SETBACKS. UH, AND SO THAT'S NOW WHAT YOU CAN DO IS IF YOU HAVE AN EVE OVERHANG, IT CAN EXTEND UP TO TWO FEET BEYOND THE, SO IF YOU BUILT YOUR STRUCTURE TO THAT 20 FOOT LINE, YOU CAN HAVE AN EVE EXTEND UP TO TWO FEET BEYOND THAT. BUT THAT'S IT. OKAY. BUT NOTHING LIKE WITH POLES OR ANYTHING TO HOLD IT UP. OKAY. MAKES SENSE. NO. OKAY. SO WELL, YEAH, AN AWNING, BUT, BUT STILL IT CAN'T HAVE A PERMANENT, LIKE IF YOU USE A RETRACTABLE RETRACTABLE [01:40:01] AWNING, CAN THAT GO INTO THE SETBACK? IT JUST, IT'S IS IT NO DIFFERENT THAN AN EAVE WHERE IT CAN'T GO OVER TWO FEET? OH, RIGHT. YOU IT'S GONNA BE THE SAME. YOU CAN'T MM-HMM. . YEAH, YOU CAN. THERE THERE ARE, THEY DO MAKE, UH, SHADES, UH, THAT YOU, THAT, THAT CAN COME, YOU CAN HANG DOWN INSTEAD INSTEAD OF BUILDING STRUCTURE TO IT. RIGHT. OKAY. I KNOW I'VE ACTUALLY SEEN THOSE. THEY'RE, THEY'RE QUITE USEFUL. UM, SO IS THERE, IS THERE, UM, ANY OTHER PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION YOU'D LIKE TO SHOW US BEFORE WE ASK QUESTIONS? DO Y'ALL HAVE MY PICTURES STILL OR NO, FROM THE ONES I SENT? OH NO, NEVERMIND. OKAY. NO, I KNOW IF I NEED IT TO SHOW THE DAMAGE. SO Y'ALL COULD SEE IT OR, YEAH, BECAUSE I HAVE A PHONE. SO SCREEN, MY DAUGHTER HAS, THAT WAY YOU CAN SEE THE INTENSE DAMAGE. 'CAUSE THEY KIND OF TOOK THE CITY TOOK BASIC PICTURES. BUT IF YOU GET CLOSE UP, OKAY. YOU'D HAVE TO GO LIKE SIDEWAYS. ASK HER. YEAH. WHILE, WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR IT. SEE HOW THAT, OKAY. UM, THAT'S THE PLATES. UH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD SEE, BUT THE, THE UNDER THAT WINDOW, THAT'S MY LIVING ROOM WINDOW. UM, ALL YOU SEE IN BETWEEN THE WALLS IS THE SHEET ROCK ALREADY, THE WOOD PLATE THAT'S DOWN THERE IS ROTTED AND THEN THE BEANS ARE ROTTED THAT HOLD THE HOUSE. COMMISSIONER SPIELMAN HAS A QUESTION. UM, YEAH, I ACTUALLY HAVE HAD PROPERTY IN THERE THAT I'VE RENOVATED. AND THE, UH, MATERIAL THAT WAS USED IN THE PIPER'S CREEK SUBDIVISION WAS DEFINITELY SUBPAR. UH, THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT, UH, THERE ARE PRODUCTS THAT YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, ALREADY LY AS FAR AS UH, UH, DOING THAT, THAT WILL KEEP THAT FROM HAPPENING. IT'S NOT, IT PUTTING AN AWNING OVER IT IS, IS NOT GONNA MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IT'S STILL GONNA BE A, AN ISSUE. YEAH. AND MORE OF A MASONRY TYPE, LIKE A HARDING PLAGUE MAY WORK LIKE A BETTER MATERIAL. YEAH. SO BECAUSE THAT'S LIKE A DETERIORATING, YOU TOUCH IT AND IT COMES APART. IT'S, IT'S LIKE PARTICLE WOOD OR SOMETHING. IT'S TERRIBLE. YEP. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, SHE'S GOT, YES, I DO. YES. MR. BROWN GOT FOUNDATION TROUBLE. SHE'S GOT FOUNDATION PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. NOW, ARNIE IS NOT GOING TO ADDRESS IF THE ARNIE WILL ADDRESS THE SUN, BUT IT WON'T ADDRESS FOUNDATION. RIGHT. I DON'T HAVE ANY FOUNDATION PROBLEMS. LIKE AS FAR AS THE CEMENT FOUNDATION. IT'S JUST THE, I WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE I GET THE, I DIDN'T GET THAT SAME DAMAGE IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE. IT'S BECAUSE THE SUN'S CONSTANTLY HITTING IT. MY, UH, THE, THE, THE, THE CONSTANT HAIL THAT COMES ON THAT DIRECTION, IT'S CONSTANTLY BEATING ON THAT AND BEATEN ON IT. AND THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THE OPENINGS. I UNDERSTAND. UM, SO LET'S, WHAT, WHAT WE'RE REALLY HERE TO TALK ABOUT YOUR HARDSHIP RELATED TO A SETBACK. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE GONNA RECONSTRUCT, YOU'RE GONNA RECONSTRUCT AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL USE A MATERIAL THAT CAN HANDLE THE SIGN A BETTER ONE. YEAH. BUT, UH, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, THIS, THIS COMMISSION WOULD BE WILLING TO APPROVE, UH, A SETBACK ENCROACHMENT. SO, UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING SETBACK? ENCROACHMENTS? ANYONE? NO. OKAY. SOMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. SO I JUST WANNA VERIFY THAT ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING THE STRUCTURE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE OF THE FENCE AND THEN ALSO ONE FOOT OVERHANG. SO BASICALLY THE OVERHANG WOULD END RIGHT ABOVE THE FENCE. MY REQUEST WAS FOUR FEET FOR THE HOUSE TO THE SIDE AND ONE FOOT OVERHANG. 'CAUSE THE CITY TOLD ME IT HAD TO BE ONE FOOT OVERHANG OVER YEAH'S. SO YOUR REQUEST INCLUDES A ONE FOOT OVERHANG. SO THE OVERHANG WOULD BE ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. CORRECT. BUT, BUT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, FOUR FEET OUT ON THE SIDE AND SIX FEET OUT ON THE BACK. WELL, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T APPROVE A ZERO SETBACK. SO IT IS, IS THE REQUEST FOR FOUR FOOT VARIANCE TO INCLUDE THE OVERHANG SUCH THAT THE OVERHANG WOULD BE ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE? THAT'S HOW I READ IT. IS IT, UH, TO SUGGEST, UM, ROOF, UH, GUTTERS, RAIN GUTTERS? OH, I'M NOT, UH, I'M HAVING AN ENGINEER THAT'S GONNA BE WORKING WITH THE CONTRACTOR, SO WHATEVER THEY RECOMMEND. 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT. OKAY. I'M PRETTY SURE GUTTERS WILL HAVE TO BE IN PLACE. GOOD FOR YOU. GOOD. OKAY. UM, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY ON THIS? ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? UH, NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. OKAY. I MEAN, I, I'VE, I'VE, I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. I'M READY TO MOVE, UH, TO A MOTION IF SOMEONE, UNLESS THERE'S ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO AT THIS POINT IS WE'RE GONNA ASK FOR A MOTION AND WE'LL HAVE SOME DELIBERATION TO SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. UH, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? OKAY. [01:45:01] I THINK COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES IS, UH, GONNA VOLUNTEER FOR THIS ONE. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 0. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE, A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE 14 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TO INCLUDE A ONE FOOT OVERHANG SITUATED AT 37 11 PIPER'S CROSS STREET APPLICANT BEING SHANNON LOWRY. BECAUSE A TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SIX FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE 14 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE IS AN ADEQUATE SPACE REMAINING FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A SITE'S SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM, I'M SORRY, TO BE ONE FOOT WITH ONE WITH A ONE FOOT OF OVERHANG. THIS REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS A PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL HAVE A MINIMAL WATER RUNOFF ONTO THE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF FINDS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PRESENT, PRESENT DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT. A SIZABLE ADDITION CANNOT BE BUILT WITHOUT OBTAINING VARIANCES FOR THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL MAINTAIN AMPLE SPACE TO EXTEND INTO THE SIDE AND REAR THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE REQUESTED SETBACK VARIANCE ARE TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE CLOSER TO THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE REQUEST WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL STILL MAINTAIN A REASONABLE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THE VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF DOES NOT FIND EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WOULD ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A CUL-DE-SAC AND SURROUNDING RESIDENTS APPEAR CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINES DUE TO THE IRREGULAR SHAPE LOTS. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCES IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE SETBACK VARIANCES ARE SOUGHT DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS IRREGULAR SHAPED AND THE, AND A CORNER LOT AND ADDITION CANNOT BE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY WITH THE BASE DISTRICT SETBACK, REGULATIONS AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER BETIS. YOU CAN LEAVE THE DISCUSSION IF YOU DESIRE. I HAVE NO COMMENT. NO FURTHER COMMENT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER, BE, UH, BRAGMAN. UM, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. THE FACT THAT THE SIDE, UM, IT, THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND THE SIDE LOT IS, UM, ON THE, UM, SIDEWALK OR CLOSEST TO THE SIDEWALK IN THE STREET, I DON'T THINK CREATES, UH, AN ISSUE WITH WATER RUNOFF, ESPECIALLY IF THE APPLICANT IS GONNA GO AHEAD AND PUT GUTTERS ON, UM, THAT SIDE AT LEAST, IF NOT BOTH SIDES. UM, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO HEAD? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA? YES. I'LL BE VOTING FOR, UM, UH, APPLICANT DILIGENCE. US NOT MAJORITY DON'T THEY VIOLATE THE LAW. AND, UH, THAT AREA THERE, I MEAN IF, YOU KNOW WITH YOU ARE A ENGINEER, ET CETERA, THAT WE COVER THE GUTTERS FOR. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SPIELMAN? YEAH, I, UM, DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE NEW ADDITION IN THE BACK WHERE THE [01:50:01] 16 FOOT, I THINK THAT'S REALLY PRETTY APPROPRIATE. I DO HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE ONE IN THE COMING UP TO THE SIDEWALK THOUGH. 'CAUSE IT'S REALLY OUT OF PLACE FOR THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'LL, IT'LL LOOK UNUSUAL. SO MY, MY THOUGHT IS, I, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SPIELMAN. THIS, UM, THE, THE, UH, THE ENCROACHMENT IN THE REAR DOESN'T BOTHER ME. THE ONE ON THE SIDE DOES, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY PLA THIS LAND, THEY, THEY PUT SETBACKS ON THE PLAT IN AND THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS AND, AND THERE'S A CERTAIN CERTAIN CONFORMITY AND UNIFORMITY OF THE HOMES THAT, THAT ADHERE TO THAT. AND, AND MINOR DEVIATIONS ARE ONE THING, BUT THIS IS TOO CLOSE. UH, SECONDLY, UM, THE, THE LOT BEHIND LOT 24, I BELIEVE IT IS BEHIND IS WHERE THE 12 FOOT, UH, C P SS EASEMENT LIES. I KIND OF LOOKED THAT UP, UH, YESTERDAY. SO I DIDN'T THINK THE REAR ENCROACHMENT WAS GONNA POSE ANY REAL ISSUE WITH ANYTHING. BUT, UH, THE SIDE I CAN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF. UM, AND I, AND IF ANOTHER COMMISSIONER, UH, CHIMES IN THAT, THAT THEY'RE NOT FOR THE SIDE, I'LL, I'LL OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO REMOVE IT FROM THE MOTION. YEAH, WE AGREE. UH, THE SIDE IS, UH, OKAY, SO I OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE, UH, PORTION DEALING WITH THE SIDE ENCROACHMENT. YES. UM, UH, TO, UH, COMMISSIONER BENAVIDES, YOU ACCEPTED IT'S UP TO SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO I ACCEPT IT. OKAY. IN THE SECOND. YES, THAT'S FINE. IN THE SECOND, UH, ACCEPT. SO NOW THE MOTION AS AMENDED IS SOLELY FOR A SIX FOOT, UH, VARIANCE TO THE REAR. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER? UH, DISCUSSION? UH, HEARING NONE UNLESS HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, UH, ON THE AMENDED MOTION ONLY DEALING WITH THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE. MS. VANES, YOU CAN JUST SAY, I CONCUR. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MS. BROWN, I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ, I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA, I CONCUR WITH FINES OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, MOTION PASSES. UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU GET WITH STAFF. SO YOU GOT THE VARIANCE ON THE REAR, BUT NOT, BUT NOT ON THE SIDE. NONE, NOT NOTHING WHATSOEVER. FIVE FEET AWAY ON THE SIDE. ON THE SIDE. SO YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXTEND IT A FOOT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL DISTANCE IS TO YOUR PROPERTY LINE, BUT YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN A FIVE FOOT SETBACK AND THEN THE EAVES CAN OVERHANG UP TO TWO FEET, UH, BEYOND THE FIVE FEET IF YOU SO WISH. SO ON THE SIDE, I CAN GO. HOW MUCH THE, THE MOST YOU CAN GET IT, YOUR STRUCTURE CAN GET AS CLOSE AS FIVE FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE WITH AN EVE OVERHANG EXTENDING UP TO TWO FEET BEYOND THAT POINT. OKAY. WOULD IT BE IN THE, IN THE, IT'LL BE THE WORDING IN THERE. SO MY MA'AM, WE CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT PART. CA STAFF CAN HELP EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU. OKAY. I LIKE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE COMMISSION, LIKE A BREAK OR SHOULD WE KEEP MOVING FORWARD? CAN WE BREAK? OKAY. AN EIGHT MINUTE BREAK. WE'LL SEE YOU ALLALL BACK AT THREE TWELVE, THREE THIRTEEN. UH, WE'RE GONNA CALL THIS BACK FROM, UM, OUR BRIEF BREAK AND BACK INTO SESSION STAFF. I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, ITEM 14 SUGGESTED TO ME, MOVE, MOVE UP AND I'D LIKE TO DO SO AT THIS TIME. SO ITEM 14. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ASHLEY LEAL, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER BO OA DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 2 6. APPLICANT MU ZANG IS REQUESTING FOR AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE SHORT TERM PERMIT LOCATED AT 1 5 7 0 3 GRAY FOX TERRACE, ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IN COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT. THE APPLICANT OBTAINED A HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER AND BEGAN OPERATING WITHOUT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT IN NOVEMBER, 2021. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INITIALLY APPLIED FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON JANUARY 10TH, 2022, THEN WAS APPROVED AND ISSUED BY STAFF ON FEBRUARY 8TH, 2022. OPERATORS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT MONTHLY REVENUES TO THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING REPORTING $0 IN REVENUES. THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT NOTIFIED THE OWNER OF DELINQUENT PAYMENTS OR REPORTS ON THEIR HOT ACCOUNT VIA EMAIL ON MARCH 7TH, 2023. NO PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THE 90 DAYS, THEREFORE THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON JUNE 23RD, 2023 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 16 DASH 1 1 1 1 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED FROM OUR THIRD PARTY VENDOR, THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT STATES NO REVENUE REPORTS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR NOVEMBER, 2021 TO APRIL, 2022 AND FOR [01:55:01] THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2023. IN JULY, 2023 AFTER REVOCATION, THE OWNER REPORTED AND PAID THE HOT ACCOUNT TAXES FROM MAY, 2022 TO MAY, 2023 IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,277 AND 99 CENTS. SECTION 16 DASH 11 ZERO D STATES THAT FAILURE TO TIMELY REPORT AND PAY HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX WITHIN 90 DAYS SHALL RESULT IN PERMIT REVOCATION. THIS IS THE COPY OF THE LETTER ATTACHED TO THE EMAIL SENT ON MARCH 7TH, 2023 FROM THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT. THIS IS THE PORTION OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION WHERE THE APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES TO IMPLY TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE. ALL APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO CHECK THIS SECTION BEFORE BEING ABLE TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 2 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT STAFF REVOKE THE PERMIT FOR THE VIOLATION DESCRIBED IN THIS PRESENTATION. TWO. THE OWNER OPERATOR OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT VIOLATED THE S T R ORDINANCE BY FAILING TO TIMELY REPORT REVENUES AND PAY THE ASSOCIATED HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX PAYMENTS. AND THREE, THE OWNER OPERATOR FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE EVEN AFTER ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO INFORM THE APPLICANT OF DELINQUENCY ON MARCH 7TH, 2023 BY CITY STAFF. 21 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT ZERO IN FAVOR FOR AND OPPOSITION AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE RED ROBIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. UH, JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON, ON YOUR ATTEMPTS IN MARCH TO CONTACT THE APPLICANT, DID YOU DO SO BY US MAIL AND EMAIL OR JUST ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE TWO? IT WAS JUST EMAIL. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NOPE. OKAY. SO HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD? MM-HMM. , GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. IF THEY COULD, IF, UM, IF HE COULD STATE HIS NAME AND TELL US ABOUT HIS CASE. OH, WHAT THAT MEANS? OUR, OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE, UH, THE PERMIT. UM, MY NAME IS . I'M HERE TO RECOVER MY, UH, AIRBNB PERMIT. OKAY. LET ME JUST ASK A, A FEW QUESTIONS. SO THE CITY, UH, STATED THAT THERE WERE, UH, NO REPORTS, MONTHLY REPORTS. IF, IF HE COULD PLEASE TALK ABOUT THAT. OKAY. UM, UM, UH, WE DID START OUR AIRBNB BUSINESS LAST, UH, MAY AND, UH, TO, UH, THE TIME OUR PERMIT WAS REVOKED. PLEASE ALLOW ME TO EXPLAIN THE REASON OF IT. OKAY. [02:00:04] THE REASON YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE REPORT OF OUR INCOME, MAIN REASON IS WE WERE JUST STARTING OUR AIRBNB BUSINESS LAST YEAR. WE DID NOT HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE FOR OUR SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY NOR PM'S PROFESSIONAL HELP. SO THEREFORE, THE AIRBNB ACCOUNT WAS NOT SET UP TO COLLECT THIS PART OF A, A HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX. I ACTUALLY PRINT OUT, UH, OUR, UH, BOOKING FROM AIRBNB AND I LIKE TO SHOW EVERYONE THAT THIS PART TEXT HAS NEVER BEEN COLLECTED. AS I SAID, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS, UH, HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX UNTIL THE TIME WE RECEIVED THE LETTER. OKAY, SO YOU DID RECEIVE THE LETTER, RIGHT? WELL, I HAVE NOT SEEN THE PHYSICAL LETTER AND, UH, I MAY HAVE RECEIVED SOMETHING BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE BARRIER I MAY ACCIDENTALLY TOSSED AWAY. OKAY. AND HAS THE 4,000, UH, SOME ODD, UH, DOLLARS BEEN PAID $4,277 DOLLARS AS THAT HAD BEEN PAID? UM, ABSOLUTELY. AND THE WAY I ACTUALLY PAID EVERYTHING PAID UP TO DATE RIGHT NOW, AS SOON AS WE REALIZE WE HAVE NOT PAID THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX, WE PAID EVERYTHING. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER, UH, NEAL, UH, HAS THERE BEEN, UM, A CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR EMAIL ADDRESS THAT COULD HAPPEN IN BETWEEN THE NOTIFICATIONS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT? UM, NO NOR MY EMAIL OR, UH, PHYSICAL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED, BUT LIKE I SAID, UM, BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE BARRIER, I REALLY DON'T READ ENGLISH AND, UH, I REALLY DON'T KNOW THIS, UH, HOTEL TEXT EXISTED. , COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, SO, UM, DID THEY HAVE SOMEBODY HELP THEM WHEN THEY FIRST APPLIED FOR THE SHORT TERM RENTAL? BECAUSE PART OF, UM, APPLYING, IT SPECIFIES THAT THEY HAVE TO TURN IN A REPORT, UM, MONTHLY, EVEN IF THERE'S NO RENTALS. I WAS HELPED, UH, TO APPLY FOR THE LICENSE, BUT I WAS NOT, UH, EXPLAINED TO. I HAVE ATTORNEY AND CAN REPORT. OKAY. I HAVE A, A QUESTION FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER BROWN. GO AHEAD. YEAH, GO AHEAD. UM, WHEN PEOPLE COME DOWN HERE, UH, FOREIGNERS THAT, THAT DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH, WHEN THEY COME DOWN TO APPLY FOR THEIR HOTEL MOTEL TAX OR WHATEVER IT IS, THEIR, UH, OCCUPANCY, ARE THEY GIVEN THE INSTRUCTION IN THEIR LANGUAGE TO DEAL WITH SO THAT THEY WILL KNOW THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY THE HOTEL MOTEL TAX OR, UH, NO. ARE THEY TO, ARE THEY EXPLAINED THAT UH, THIS IS, THIS IS HOW IT IS? NO, AND THE APPLICATION THAT HE SUBMITTED WAS ONLINE THROUGH OUR BUILD ESSAY PORTAL, AND THE APPLICATION IS IN ENGLISH, AND IT WAS FILLED OUT IN ENGLISH, AND OUR EMAIL TO THEM WAS IN ENGLISH. I MEAN, I THINK WE JUST, SINCE HE, IT WAS FILLED OUT IN ENGLISH, I THINK WE JUST THOUGHT THAT HE, UM, SO WHAT WAS IT, WHY WASN'T IT MAILED OUT IN HIS NATIVE TONGUE? I MEAN, I, I JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, IF HE DIDN'T, IF HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT WHEN HE CAME DOWN HERE, WAS ANYTHING EXPLAINED TO HIM IN HIS NATIVE TONGUE BACK IN 2022? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE, THE TEAM THAT HANDLED [02:05:01] THE S T R TEAM MAY HAVE KNOWN THAT. I'M SORRY, SPEAK THAT, PLEASE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY KNEW THAT HE NEEDED A, A DIFFERENT ASSISTANCE WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT HE DIDN'T UN IT WASN'T IN ENGLISH. EVERYTHING THAT WAS RECEIVED WAS IN ENGLISH FROM HIM, FROM THE APPLICANT. SO IT'S ONLY NOW DISCOVERED THAT TRANSLATION IS NEEDED. BUT DIDN'T HE COME DOWN HERE AND APPLY OR DID HE APPLIED ON THROUGH THE ONLINE PORTAL? WELL, HE HAD TO, THAT'S NOT IN, THAT'S NOT IN HIS NATIVE TONGUE. THAT WAS IN ENGLISH. SO HE MUST HAVE HAD SOMEBODY TO HELP HIM WITH THE APPLICATION. THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR HIM. UM, YEAH, I'M ASKING, SO COULD YOU TRANSLATE THIS PLEASE? WHEN HE APPLIED ONLINE, WHO APPLIED ONLINE FOR HIM AND TOLD HIM, YOU KNOW, WHAT HE HAD TO DO? WELL, IT WAS APPLIED ONLINE AND THEN MY SON HELPED ME. WELL, I KNOW THAT, I KNOW THAT IT WAS APPLIED ONLINE, BUT WHO DID IT FOR HIM? BECAUSE THE ONLINE IS IN ENGLISH AND HE CLAIMS HE DOESN'T, HE DOESN'T SPEAK ENGLISH OR I DON'T, HE, HE SAID HIS SON HELPED HIM. HIS SON? YES. OKAY, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. SO YOUR SON DIDN'T READ THE RULES TO YOU OR WHAT YOU, HE JUST TOLD YOU A SIGN HERE, NATHAN, WHAT ARE IS THE MAIL? NO, HE DID NOT. SO, QUESTION FOR STAFF, WHEN YOU APPLY ONLINE, DOES IT, DOES IT GIVE YOU AN, UM, A LIST OF THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO OR IS IT JUST REFERENCE CITY CODE OR DOES IT REFERENCE, UH, THE, THE INFO PAMPHLET? I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU APPLY ONLINE? YES, THEY SIGN, UM, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, UM, AND IT'S LISTED ON THERE AS FAR AS, UM, EVERYTHING THAT THEY ACKNOWLEDGE AS WELL AS THE CODES. AND IT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW. WHAT THEY CHECK OFF EACH BOX THAT THEY ACKNOWLEDGE. OKAY. WHAT, WHERE DOES IT SAY HE HAS TO DO THIS ONCE A MONTH OR IS IT REFERENCING A SECTION CODE? IT'S REFERENCING A SECTION OF THE CODE THAT THEY WOULD REFER BACK TO. OKAY. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS THAT YOU APPLY ONLINE, THERE'S A BRIEF LIST OF ITEMS, UH, AND, AND THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT HE HAS TO DO ARE REFERENCED IN THESE CODE SECTIONS, BUT THEY'RE NOT SPELLED OUT. AND THE CITY HAS A PAMPHLET THAT THEY ISSUE THAT DISCUSSES CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO DO. IT'S OFFERED IN ENGLISH, I THINK, AND AS WELL AS SPANISH. YES, I THINK I READ IT. UM, BUT IT'S SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE TO DOWNLOAD AND PRINT OUT. THEY DON'T JUST GIVE IT TO YOU. UH, AND SO THAT JUST WANTED TO START. WELL, IT'S ALSO AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE AS WELL, RIGHT? HE, HE SAID THAT HIS SON APPLIED ON THE WEBSITE FOR HIM. YEAH. SO HIS SON MUST SPEAK ENGLISH, SO HIS SON WOULD'VE APPLIED. BUT IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN HERE, THIS IS, THIS IS THE ITEMS THAT HE WOULD'VE READ AND, AND, AND HIS SON ISN'T THE ONE WHO'S RESPONSIBLE, BUT IT'S, IT'S, UH, I THINK THE, I I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IS THAT THE, THE, YES, THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO THIS ONCE A MONTH. UH, BUT THE INSTRUCTIONS AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IMAGE PROVIDED DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS, DON'T SPELL IT OUT THAT SUCCINCTLY. WELL, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVE A WEBSITE. UH, THE CITY HAS A WEBSITE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A MULTITUDE OF CULTURES HERE IN THE CITY, AND, UH, BUT WE CAN'T SUPPLY THESE PEOPLE WITH THEIR, WITH RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THEIR OWN NATIVE TONGUE. I, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. BUT, BUT IF HE GETS BEHIND IN HIS, UH, IN HIS TAXES, OH, THEN, THEN EVERYBODY'S JUMPING ON HIM TO DO THAT. NOW HE HAS A, HE HAS A, HIS SON SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED ALL THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO HIM IF HE WAS THE ONE THAT APPLIED ONLINE. SO HE WOULD KNOW THAT HE HAD TO APPLY EVERY MONTH OR PAY EVERY MONTH OR WHATEVER HE HAD TO DO. I, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THE, I THINK THAT THE CITY HAS SOME RESPONSIBILITY IN THAT. OKAY. YES. COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ AND THEN COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA FOR, FOR THE CITY. UM, DO, DO WE HAVE, UH, UH, NINE ENGLISH SPEAKING SPANISH DOCUMENTS, UH, FOR PEOPLE TO, TO FILL OUT WHEN THEY'RE APPLYING FOR, FOR THE SHORT TERM RENTALS? JUST ENGLISH AND SPANISH. DID YOU SAY THAT YOU DO HAVE, UH, DOCUMENTS IN SPANISH? YES. LIKE, UM, AS SHORT TERM RENTAL FACT SHEETS INFORMATION? RIGHT. SO THEN, UH, OTHER, OTHER, UH, LANGUAGES HAVE NOT BEEN NO, [02:10:03] THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER A, IS HIS SON IN THE AUDIENCE HERE? HIS SON HERE SIT. CAN HE COME UP? WE ALSO HAVE THREE VOICEMAILS ON THIS, JUST LETTING YOU KNOW. OKAY. SO, UH, HI. GOOD, GOOD EVENING. SO YOU, THE PERSON THAT, UH, FILLED OUT THE APPLICATION FORM? YES, SIR. YEAH. AND, UH, YEP. AND, UH, DID YOU RECOGNIZE THERE THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO, HE WOULD HAVE TO REPORT EVERY MONTH? UH, I DID NOT. UM, LIKE, LIKE HE SAID, IT WAS VERY BRIEF. UM, I JUST READ IT OVER TO HIM, UM, BUT IT DIDN'T, IT DIDN'T SAY LIKE, I HAVE TO PAY THE TAXES EVERY MONTH. LIKE, I, LIKE HE SAID, UM, IT WAS VERY BRIEF, SO I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT AS WELL. YEAH, THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCED CERTAIN CITY CODE, SO THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO THEN GO AND FIND THE CITY CODE AND THEN, YEAH. THANK YOU. SO, RIGHT. QUESTION, COMMISSIONER ZUNA, UH, STAFF? YES. UM, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TESTIMONY THAT HE'S CURRENT ON HIS BACK TAXES. CAN YOU CONFIRM THE TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL? I'LL LET A FINANCE CHIME IN. SO HE DID NOT REPORT FOR DECEMBER 20, DECEMBER, 2021 TO APRIL, 2022 FROM MAY, 2022 TO MAY, 2023, THAT, THAT WAS REPORTED AND PAID. OKAY. SO A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. DO YOU HAVE ANY REPORTS OR, OR MONEY DUE FROM 2021 TO APRIL, 2022? I STARTED BY AIRBNB IN MAY OF 2022. I DIDN'T RUN ANY BUSINESS FOR AIRBNB IN 2021. SO, SO THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN LATE 2021, BUT THERE WAS NO RENTALS OH, MAIL. NOT THE WHOLE MAIL, MAIL . NO, NO, IT WASN'T ON THE MARKET PLAN. ALL, UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? I'VE, I I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE. WE HAVE SOME, UH, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT TO HEAR TOO. UH, AND MAYBE I DIDN'T HEAR THE YOUNG LADY CORRECTLY FROM FINANCE. YOU DID SAY HE IS CURRENT ON EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW. CURRENT, NO, HE DOES OWE FROM DECEMBER, 2021 TO MAY, APRIL, 2022. THAT IS DELINQUENT. RIGHT? THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY RENTALS, BUT, BUT, BUT HE STILL HAS TO FILE A REPORT. THE REPORT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO DOES THE APPLICANT KNOW THAT HE STILL HAS TO FILE A REPORT FROM NOVEMBER OF 2021 TO APRIL OF 2022? I DID NOT HAVE A B BUSINESS THAT I CAN PROVE IT. UH, NO. THEY, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A REPORT THAT SAYS THAT YOU DON'T OWE ANY MONEY, BUT THEY NEED SOMETHING FOR EVERY MONTH SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO ACTIVITY. OH, OKAY. IT'S MY FAULT, BUT I'M JUST LEARNING THAT I HAVE TO, I STILL HAVE TO REFINE REPORT. EVEN I HAVE ZERO INCOME. OKAY. UM, I, IF THE COMM NO ONE IN THE COMMISSION OBJECTS, I'D LIKE TO HEAR SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTARY AND IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL, WE WILL DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S, UH, WE HAVE VOICEMAILS OR WE HAVE PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. WE HAVE THREE VOICEMAILS. LET'S HEAR 'EM. YES. MY NAME IS FRANK GENTEEL. MY ADDRESS IS 1 5 8 1 5 COTTONTAIL LANE, SAN ANTONIO. THE NUMBERS OF THE CASE NUMBER LAST, UH, NUMBERS IS 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 6. UH, CONCERNING THIS CASE, I DO NOT WANT ANY REINSTATEMENT OF THE PERMIT THEY WERE GIVEN DUE NOTICE. THEY SHOULD HAVE PAID THE TAX. IT SHOULD STAY REVOKED. THIS IS NOT FAIR TO THE HOMEOWNERS HERE. IF IT WAS A FORECLOSURE, THEY WOULD'VE LOST THE PROPERTY IF THEY DIDN'T PAY THEIR TAXES, AND THERE WOULD BE NO SECOND CHANCE. THIS [02:15:01] IS ONGOING CHALLENGES HERE IN OUR NARROW STREET. WE HAVE RESTRICTED PARKING. THE REAL, THESE RULES ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED BY THE VISITORS. WE HAVE INCREASED TRAFFIC, AND THIS IS A ZONED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS NOT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. WE ARE PAYING TAXES AS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. WE WERE NOT GIVEN THE CHOICE TO HAVE THESE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES BE TURNED INTO BY THESE OWNERS. IT'S NOT FAIR TO US. UH, WE HAVE BYLAWS THAT SAY THIS IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE ONLY THE CITY SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THESE MATTERS. TAX WAS NOT COLLECTED, SO THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED. WE HAVE ONGOING COMPLAINTS ON ANOTHER PROPERTY, 1 5 8 1 9 COTTONTAIL. THAT IS NOT BEING ADDRESSED EQUALLY BECAUSE THE SAN SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS CALLED OUT NUMEROUS TIMES ABOUT PROBLEMS. AND THIS IS JUST BEING IGNORED BECAUSE TAXES BEING PAID BY THAT PROPERTY, IT'S UNFAIR TO US AS HOMEOWNERS TO BE LIVING NEXT TO A HOTEL. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE BOUGHT INTO. AND I REALLY APPEAL TO YOUR BOARD TO LOOK INTO THIS DEEPER AND BE FAIR ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST REALLY A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE. I LIVE NEXT TO A HOME THAT HAS A POOL AND A HOT TUB, AND THIS IS AN ONGOING PROBLEM. THERE ARE DIFFERENT PEOPLE THERE MULTIPLE TIMES OF THE WEEK. AND IF YOU LIVE THERE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU WOULD FEEL THE SAME WAY. YOU WOULDN'T WANT THIS NEXT TO YOU. IT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR. I WISH I COULD BE THERE TO TELL YOU THIS IN PERSON, BUT THE APPOINTMENTS THAT YOU HAD AND I HAD DID NOT JIVE. I WILL TAKE THIS FURTHER, AND THIS WILL BE PRETTY EMBARRASSING ONCE I GET INTO SOCIAL MEDIA AND START TALKING ABOUT THIS AND POINTING IT OUT. AND THIS CAN BE A VERY BIG ITEM IN THE CITY, AS YOU KNOW, IT'S AGAINST, IT'S REALLY AGAINST MORAL CONDUCT. IF YOU WERE PUT NEXT TO A HOUSE THAT WAS AT HOTEL AND YOU WERE FORCED TO LIVE LIKE THIS, YOU WOULD FEEL THE SAME WAY, PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING. THANK YOU. THIS IS ARRANGING HILL. I LIVE AT 1 5 8 1 5 COTTONTAIL LANE, SANJE, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT TWO FIVE FIVE. MY PHONE NUMBER IS AREA CODE (210) 215-2324. AND THE LAST FOUR DIG DIGITS OF THE CASE NUMBER IS 0 2 0 6. I DO NOT WISH THE PERMIT TO BE REINSTATED, AND MY OPINION IS IF I HAD BEEN FORECLOSED AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PAY MY TAXES AND DIDN'T PAY THEM, THAT I WOULD BE FORCED TO GIVE UP MY PROPERTY. AND I'M SURE YOU GAVE HIM PLENTY OF NOTICE TO PAY HIS TAXES. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE AT THIS POINT. AND I DO NOT FEEL THE PERMIT NEEDS TO BE REINSTATED. IN ADDITION, I WANNA ADD SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO NOTIFY THE BOARD TO YOUR ATTENTION. YOU DO NOT STATE ON THE NOTICE THE REASON WHY THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED, WHICH I FEEL, WHICH WAS IMPROPER, IMPROPER BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS DID NOT KNOW HOW TO RESPOND. UM, IT'S NOT FAIR. YOU'RE JUST TAKING, YOU'RE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ONLY TAKING ACTION ON UNPAID TAXES, BUT NOT ON PROPERTIES. I HAVE NUMEROUS POLICE ACTIONS DUE TO CITY VIOLATIONS. YOU'RE NOT BEING FAIR. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS THE CORAL MARTINEZ AND I LIVE AT 1 5 7 3 1 ROBIN VIEW IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT TWO FIVE FIVE. MY PHONE NUMBER IS (512) 517-3862. I'M CALLING IN REGARDS TO CASE NUMBER 0 2 0 6. I UNDERSTAND THIS HAS TO DO WITH A, UM, BED AND BREAKFAST, UH, UH, AT THE HOUSE THAT THEY'RE USING. THEY DID NOT PAY THEIR TAXES ON TIME, AND I THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD REASON TO REVOKE THE, THEIR PERMIT TO HAVE A BED AND BREAKFAST THERE. AND THAT'S ABOUT IT. UH, GIVE ME A CALL BACK IF YOU NEED ANY MORE INFORMATION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, BRAGMAN, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THIS DOCUMENT, I HEAR THIS DOCUMENT HERE THAT SAYS CUSTOM FIELDS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, UM, MAY LOOK SIMPLE. IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF CHECK BOXES, BUT THEN, UM, THERE'S NUMEROUS PLACES WHERE IT REFERS TO A DIFFERENT CODE. IS IT POSSIBLE THESE CODES COULD BE [02:20:01] LINKED WITH THESE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SO THAT THEY CAN GO TO THEM AND SEE WHAT, UH, CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE REALLY MEANS? I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO TO SEE IF WE CAN HYPERLINK IT SO THAT THEY CAN CLICK ON IT AND CAN REDIRECT THEM. SO WE, WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT FOR SURE. OKAY, SO, UM, I, I, UH, WAS WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY MORE QUESTIONS BECAUSE I'M READY TO MOVE THIS, MOVE THIS FORWARD HERE A LITTLE BIT. COMMISSIONER, IF I COULD ADD PLEASE. UM, YES, THIS, AGAIN, THIS IS WITH THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT. WHEN CUSTOMERS DO APPLY FOR A PERMIT, EVEN BACK IN 2019 DOWN, UH, TO PRESENT WHEN THEY GO TO THE FINANCE WEBPAGE, WHEN, AGAIN, WHEN THEY APPLY ON THE WEBPAGE, IT DOES STATE ON THERE THAT REPORTING IS REQUIRED EVEN IF THERE ARE NO RECEIPTS AND PENALTIES AND INTEREST ARE ASSESSED. THAT HAS BEEN ON THERE SINCE 2019. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. SO WITH THAT, UM, I'M LOOKING FOR A COMMISSIONER TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS. UH, YOU CAN, UH, Y'ALL CAN HAVE A SEAT AND WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. I DIDN'T HEAR IT. IS THERE YES, SOMETHING SAY YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD. AND WE'RE TRULY SORRY FOR WHAT CAUSED US RIGHT NOW, BUT WE DID NOT DO IT THIS INTENTIONALLY. AS SOON AS WE REALIZED THIS, UH, HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX, WE PAID IT RIGHT AWAY. AND, UH, THIS IS OUR MANAGER MAJOR INCOME FOR OUR HOUSEHOLD. WE NEED IT. OKAY. UH, QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. HAS THERE BEEN ANY, UM, UH, POLICE REPORTS OR ANY, UH, OFFICIAL COMPLAINTS ON THIS SPECIFIC S T R? NO. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S, LET'S, UH, COMMISSIONER LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? UH, YES MA'AM. WE COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE CITATION AND ALL THE TIME AND EFFORT EVERYONE PUT IN HERE AND WE GET IT. WE PROMISE EVERYONE WILL PAY THE TAX ON TIME FROM NOW ON, SEND THE REPORT EVERY MONTH, BUT WE NEED IT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY, COMMISSIONER SPIELMAN? YES, REGARDING CASE, UH, BO O A TWENTY THREE TEN THREE HUNDRED TWO OH SIX, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 15 7 0 3 FOX TERRACE, APPLICANT BEING MOVED, SANG BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN REVOKING THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. ORIAN, UH, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER SPIELMAN, UH, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? I, UH, YOU KNOW, AGREE THAT THE, THE CITY HAS, HAS, UH, UH, DONE A LOT OF THINGS THAT THEY COULD, BUT I, I THINK UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THE, UH, APPLICANT DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON AND, UH, THEIR, UH, INTENTION TO TRY TO MAKE RIGHT WITH THIS AS, UH, WHAT I THINK IS THE CORRECT DECISION. RIGHT. AND, AND I I AGREE WITH YOU. UH, THE PUBLIC COMMENTARY WE HEARD SEEMED TO BE, UH, MORE DIRECTED AT AN ADDRESS, 1 5 8 1 9, UH, COTTONTAIL AND NOT THIS PARTICULAR ADDRESS, UH, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS, UH, APPARENTLY A, UM, WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT POND. IT'S NOT A HOUSE. SO THEY ONLY HAVE ONE NEIGHBOR. THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANY, THEY HAVE NO COMPLAINTS, HAVE THEY? THEY HAD A COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE RULES WERE, AND ONCE THEY FOUND OUT, THEY IMMEDIATELY PAID. AND SO, I, I, UH, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT DUE TO THE LANGUAGE BARRIER. UM, ANYONE ELSE LIKE THAT HEARING ON SEVERAL ROLL CALL? VOTE PLEASE. YEAH, IF YOU VOTE IN THE, IF YOU VOTE FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, UH, OR VOTE YAY. YOU'RE VOTING FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER? YEAH. I'M, I'M GONNA VOTE, YOU KNOW, FOR THE APPLICANT. OKAY. I, I, I BELIEVE, UH, IT'S SUCH A SHORT TIME, UH, THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING THIS AT THIS TIME. [02:25:01] UH, FOR THE LAST THREE, FOUR MONTHS, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE MORE COMMUNICATION BY THE STAFF REGARDING, YOU KNOW, THIS APPLICATIONS AND, UH, IF YOU, IF THEY DON'T COME IN PERSON, SOMETHING'S GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN. IF THEY DON'T COME IN PERSON AND THEY JUST GO AHEAD AND CLICK THE BOXES AND WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE MORE AND MORE OF THIS CASES SURE. AND WHERE IT'S GOING, SO, YOU KNOW, AMEN TO THAT. BUT I MEAN, LIKE I SAY, THIS IS, IT'S GETTING OUTTA HAND. YEAH. MAYBE EVEN A DROP DOWN TO WHERE THEY CAN REFERENCE, UH, WHAT PREDOMINANT LANGUAGE THEY WOULD LIKE COMMUNICATION IN, JUST SO STAFF KNOWS THAT EVEN DO ADDITIONAL OUTREACH. OKAY. LET'S HAVE ANYONE ELSE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MR. SPIELMAN? YES. CHAIR ORIAN? YES. I SIDE WITH THE APPLICANT. MS. BROWN? YES. MR. MENCHACA? YES. MR. DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES. MR. ZUNIGA? YES, I CONCUR. MS. BEES? YES, I SIDE WITH THE APPLICANT. MS. BRAGMAN? YES. MR. OZUNA? YES. I CONCUR WITH THE APPLICANT. MR. VASQUEZ? NO. WAS THAT EVERYBODY? OKAY. UH, MOTION PASSES NINE TO TWO. UH, CONGRATULATIONS. PLEASE, PLEASE MAKE YOUR FILINGS MONTHLY AND, AND PLEASE. AND YOU ALSO OWE ZERO FILINGS FOR THE NOVEMBER TO TO APRIL IF YOU COULD MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND. OKAY? OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MUCH. EXCUSE ME. WHILE THEY'RE HERE, MA'AM, WHILE THEY'RE HERE, CAN THEY TALK TO THE STAFF O ON WHAT YOU DO THERE? ANY QUESTIONS THEY HAVE? LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY. WE DON'T WANT TO SEE YOU HERE AGAIN, BECAUSE THEN WE'LL REVOKE. YES, SIR. ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, EVERYONE. ALL RIGHT. SO WE LEFT OFF, UH, ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE. UH, HOLD ON A SECOND BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO ITEM FIVE. WE DO HAVE, HAVE SOMEONE THAT'S WAITING ON THIS ITEM, SIR. WHICH ONE? ON ITEM FIVE. SHE'S BEEN WAITING. SHE WAS GONNA HAVE TO LEAVE. YEAH. UM, ALL RIGHT, WE CAN HIT ITEM NUMBER FIVE. I JUST WANTED TO, I JUST WAS, UH, ITEM NUMBER 15 WAS ALSO DEALT WITH FINANCE. I UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT OVER WITH. I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT, UH, WAS VERY CONCERNED WHEN WE TOOK ITEM 14 AND CAME OVER AND SPOKE TO ME BECAUSE SHE WAS, SHE'S NEEDS TO LEAVE TO CARE FOR HER CHILDREN, THEN. WE'LL, WE MAY GO BACK TO 15. SO FINANCE CAN NOT STAY HERE TILL THE END. ITEM FIVE, UM, ITEM NUMBER FIVE, BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 11. LOCATED AT TO TWO PACKARD IN COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER FIVE ON HOMES AND RESORT. U S A IS THE APPLICANT A REQUEST FOR A 975 SQUARE FOOT FEET VARIANCE ON THE MAXIMUM 4,530 SQUARE FOOT LOT COVERAGE TO ALLOW 5,505 SQUARE FEET DEVELOPMENT ON AN RM, UM, LOT WITH A 65% LOT COVERAGE. AND TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW THE FRONT YARD TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER. UM, ZONING IS RMM FOUR. UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON PACKER STREET, JUST EAST OF NO GTOS BETWEEN THE INTERSECTIONS OF CRYSTAL STREET AND KEAT STREET. APPLICANT IS SUPPOSEDLY CORU A, A TRIPLEX AND IS REQUESTING A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS AT THE EDGE OF A PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION AND A BUTSA MOTEL IN THE REAR. UM, THAT IS CURRENTLY A PICTURE OF THE SITE PLAN WITH THE NUMBERS ONE AND TWO FOR THE REQUESTED VARIANCE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS IT IS A VACANT LOT AND THE STREET SIDE OF VIEW AND SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SQUARE FEET LOT COVERAGE AND IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO O A 23 1 0 3 0 2 11 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDER IS NOT OBSERVED AS THE PROPOSED TRIPLEX EXCEEDS 65% LOT COVERAGE AND THE IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCE WILL RESULT IN EXCESS WATER RUNOFF TO ADJACENT LOTS. THE NOTIFICATION PLAN WITH 23 NOTICES SENT OUT THERE IS ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THE VICINITY. AND THAT CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. GREAT. UH, DOES [02:30:01] HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD, MR. GENTLEMEN? YES. UH, WE, UH, CAN TAKE THE CASES THE WAY THEY ARE. IT'S NOT, YEAH, YEAH, I, I, I, I UNDERSTAND. COMMISSION UNI. UH, PLEASE, PLEASE CONTINUE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT, ABOUT YOUR CASE, PLEASE. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. MY NAME IS IDO TAAKA AND I'M THE OWNER OF HIGHEND HOMES AND RESORT U S A. UH, THE VARIANCE WE'RE REQUESTING IS BECAUSE THE SITE USED TO BE A DUMPING GROUND, AND WHAT WE ARE DOING IS BUILDING IT HELPS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN HAVE SHELTER OVER THEIR, OVER THEIR HEADS. AND WE'RE PROPOSING A TRIPLEX, BUT ALSO WITH ENCLOSED GARAGES. SO ONE CAR GARAGE PER UNIT, AND THAT'S WHAT'S DESTROYING OFF THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE BUILDING. AND ALSO AN ADDITIONAL BATHROOM THAT WE HAVE IN THERE IN TERMS OF A FRONT YARD, WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT RE REDESIGNING IT SO WE CAN REDUCE THE IMPER IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE BY RED, YOU KNOW, REDESIGNING THE AMOUNT OF CONCRETE THAT WE'LL NEED TO POUR. BUT THE MAJOR ONE HAS TO DO WITH A ONE CAR GARAGE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE, EACH UNIT CAN HAVE TWO PACKING SPACES AS REQUIRED BY THE CODE. AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. O OKAY. UH, SO QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF, AND I'M, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE, UM, WITH REGARD TO THE 50% COVERAGE REQUIREMENT, UH, THE, THE SECTION THAT WE, THAT TALKS ABOUT THE 50% COVERAGE, UH, ALSO PROVIDES SOME INFORMATION ABOUT REDUCING PERVIOUS COVER ON RESIDENTIAL THROUGH GRAVEL. IF THIS APPLICANT WOULD NOT HAVE CONCRETE DRIVE, HE'S BEEN INSTEAD USED GRAVEL OR OTHER, UM, APPROACHES, WOULD THERE BE A 50% VIOLATION? NOT NECESSARILY, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO SEE HOW THEY DESIGN IT. OKAY. MR. CHAIR, WOULD THAT ALMOST LIKE A RIBBON, UH, DRIVE ALSO, WOULD THAT MAYBE CLEAR THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER SO THAT WE COULD NOT INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE VARIANCE? IS THAT THE INTENT HERE? YEAH, UM, THAT'S, THAT IS, UH, WHERE I WAS GETTING AT. UM, I'M, I'M LOOKING UP THE SECTION OF CODE. IT SAYS, IN ORDER TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS SERVICES, SHARED DRIVEWAY SHALL BE PERMITTED IN ORDER TO REDUCE RUNOFF AND INCREASE STORM . ALTERNATE MATERIALS FOR DRIVEWAY SERVICES SUCH AS PREVIOUS PAVERS OR GRAVEL SHALL BE PERMITTED IN ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AS A MEANS TO REDUCE, UH, IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. SO THERE, THERE'S, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THAT PORTION OF THE VARIANCE COULD BE ADDRESSED, COULD BE ADDRESSED. UH, IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO PURSUE SOME, UH, PERVIOUS, UH, SURFACES FOR YOUR DRIVEWAY, WAS THAT EXPLAINED TO YOU OR THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING INTO. OKAY. SO WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT. OKAY. SO WE DON'T, SO THAT WE CAN TAKE THAT OFF. YES, PLEASE. OKAY. WELL THAT'S, THAT'S A VERY GENEROUS OF YOU. ALRIGHT, SO, UH, THE FIRST ITEM THEN, THEN WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IS THE, UH, EXCEEDING THE 65% LOCK COVERAGE, WHICH IS A NEW SECTION OF CODE THAT CAME INTO PLAY JANUARY 1ST. YES. ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT, UH, SECTION, UH, PORTION OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATION? BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH OVER THE 65% IT STAFF? DO WE KNOW WHAT THE PERCENTAGE IS? UM, SO THE LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS, UH, 6,969 SQUARE FEET. SO THE MAXIMUM WITH THE 65, UH, LOT COVERAGE WOULD ONLY ALLOW THEM THE 4,530 SQUARE FEET. BUT WHERE ARE THEY AT NOW? DO, DO YOU KNOW WHAT, HOW MUCH IS, UH, IS YOUR BUILDING FOOTPRINT? 5,500. SO WE'RE OVER BY 9 75. AND EACH COST, COST SPACE IS ABOUT 275. 278 EACH. IS THAT 9 75 INCLUDING THE DRIVEWAYS OR IS THAT, UH, HOLD ON, SORRY, CAN I QUICKLY CHECK? BECAUSE THE 65% DOES INCLUDE DRIVEWAYS, CORRECT. COLLECTIVELY THE ENTIRE LOT. I THINK SO. LOT COVERAGE. YES. YES. SO IF WE, UH, MAKE AMENDMENT WITH THE, THE FRONT YARD, THE, THE, SORRY, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT WILL REDUCE THE, THE AMOUNT OF YOU MIGHT, YOU MIGHT ADDRESS BOTH VARIANCES? BOTH OF, YES. OKAY. ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. OKAY. I, I KNOW THE AREA AND I CAN SEE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT DOES IT HAVE TO BE A TRIPLEX? CAN IT JUST NOT BE TWO? UH, WELL, ALL THE OTHER LOTS WE ALSO HONE IT. AND WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO, UM, BASED ON THE SIZE, 'CAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE DIMENSION, ALL THE OTHER LOTS, WE COULD ONLY PUT TWO UNITS ON THEM. BUT THIS IS BIGGER AND WE'RE ABLE LIKE, OKAY, IF WE CAN FIT IN AND ONE FAMILY CAN MOVE IN, THAT'S ONE SHELTER RATHER THAN IT JUST BEING THERE. SO ALL THE ARE SMALLER OKAY. THAN THIS PARTICULAR. OKAY. SO WHAT WOULD BE THE, THE SPACE IN BETWEEN EACH ONE? HOW, HOW, HOW FAR APART ARE THEY? OH NO, THEY'RE TOGETHER BY LOW. WE HAVE, THEY HAVE TO SHARE ONE ROOF. OH. SO THEY'RE ATTACHED. OKAY. SO IT'S ONE HOLE. OKAY. ONE BUILDING. I GET IT ALL. AND, AND STAFF, THIS WAS ZONE [02:35:01] R FOUR, THE ZONING WAS CHANGED TO RM FIVE RECENTLY? YES. THE RM FIVE? YES. OKAY. AND RM FIVE ACTUALLY HAS LESS DENSITY THAN RMM FOUR. CORRECT. SO, OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS IT IF THE APPLICANT IS ALREADY GOING TO REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND CHANGE OUT TO SOME SORT OF RIBBON OR THEN DO WE NEED HER TO STATE THAT? OR HOW DO WE WELL, WE JUST DON'T READ THE VARIANCE, THEN SHE HAS TO DO . OKAY. SO, UH, WE CAN STRIKE THAT, THAT, UH, PORTION OF THE REQUEST AND THEN LEAVE IT WITH THE 65% STRIKING NUMBER TWO. YES. YEAH. AND BECAUSE SHE HAS TO HAVE SO MUCH DISTANCE, YOU HAVE A GARAGE ON THESE? YES. OKAY. BECAUSE SHE HAS SO MUCH DISTANCE FROM THE GARAGE FACE TO THE FRONT STREET THAT KIND OF FORCES THAT WHOLE SECTION TO BE PERVIOUS AND TO KEEP A CERTAIN DISTANCE AWAY WITH ALONG WITH THE SETBACK. SO, UM, THAT SEEMS FINE TO ME. IS THERE ANY OTHER, UH, POINTS OR ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? WELL, IT WAS THE 65% THAT I WAS, YEAH, SO, SO WHAT HAPPENS IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO STAY 20 FEET AWAY FROM THE FACE OF THE GARAGE TO THE STREET, AND BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE CERTAIN SETBACKS ON AN R FIVE BY MAKING THE DRIVEWAYS PERVIOUS, SHE WILL EITHER BE AT THE 65 OR SLIGHTLY OVER. AND SO, UM, DOES OUR VARIANCE, IF WE PROVIDE A VARIANCE, DO WE HAVE TO STATE HOW MANY SQUARE FEET IS, IS IN EXCESS OR IS IT JUST EXCEEDING? JUST EXCEEDING. OKAY. SO YEAH, WE COULD, IN THEORY SHE COULD, IT'S POSSIBLE FOR HER TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS AND NOT HAVE TO BE HERE AT ALL. I THINK THAT SHE'S, SHE, THE CONCERN IS FOR THE 65% THAT JUST IN CASE IT'S SLIGHTLY OVER, BUT IF WE DON'T READ IN THE DRIVEWAY PART OF IT, THE 50%, THEN THAT FORCES HER TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER BECAUSE OF THE 20. 'CAUSE SHE'S NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE 20 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT. SO, UM, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY VOICEMAILS? NO, THERE'S NOT. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS? OH, UH, CRUZ, I'VE GOT A QUESTION. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, ON THE, UH, MOTION IT SAYS THE, THE NUMBER IS TWO 11 AND ON WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING IT SAYS 0 21. SO WHICH ONE'S THE CORRECT NUMBER? OH, OKAY. LET ME, TWO 11. YEAH, TWO 11. AND THEN, UH, WHOEVER READS A MOTION, UH, COULD EXCLUDE ITEM NUMBER TWO. YEAH. SO IF, WITH THAT, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE DELIBERATE. NOTHING ELSE. I'M JUST SEEKING JUST THANK. ALRIGHT. RIGHT, THANK YOU. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION PLEASE. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 1 1. I MOVED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR A 975 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 45 30 SQUARE FOOT LOT COVERAGE TO ALLOW 55 0 5 SQUARE FEET DEVELOPMENT ON AN RMM FIVE WITH O OVER 65% LOT COVERAGE, UM, SITUATED AT 2 0 2 PACKARD STREET. APPLICANT BEING ION HOMES AND RESORT U SS A BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOULD THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SET THROUGH LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE 65% LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT. THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN HAVING TO REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE TRIPLEX AND DECREASE THE, I SORRY, REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE TRIPLEX, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THREE, BY GRANTING THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AS ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WILL BE MET. AND INCREASED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IS REQUIRED FOR PARKING. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT AND WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. [02:40:01] STAFF FINDS THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT. IT'S DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED, UH, TRIPLEX AND PROPOSED PARKING AREA. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UH, YEAH, I THINK WITH TAKING OUT THE, UM, THE IMPERVIOUS, UH, COVER, UM, AND WITH THE GUIDELINES OF WHAT YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF CHANGING OUT, UM, THE DRIVEWAYS, UM, THAT IT SHOULD SOLVE THE, THE ISSUE. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES. SECOND KER. MS. BERGMAN. AND I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT, WITH THE WAY THE CHANGES ARE BEING MADE. IT SHOULD BE, UM, NICE TRIPLEX IN THERE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UM, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HEARING NOW HAVE ROLL CALL, VOTE PLEASE. MS. BRAGMAN? I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BROWN? YES. MS. MANCHACA? I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. VANES? I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA? I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I DO NOT CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I CONCUR. UM, MOTION FAILS. EIGHT TO THREE. UNLESS SOMEONE WHO ON THE PREVAILING SIDE WOULD LIKE TO OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE. IS THERE A WAY WE COULD SPLIT THE MOTION? UM, WELL, THE MOTION IS ONLY FOR ONE. THE ONLY OTHER THING WE COULD DO IS REDUCE INSTEAD OF 975, YOU CAN MAKE IT A HUNDRED FEET OR SOMETHING. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. TO THE OPPOSITION OF SIDE, DOES ANYBODY OUTSIDE, DOES ANY OF THE THREE MEMBERS WHO OPPOSE, WOULD, WOULD THEY, WOULD THEY, UH, BE, UH, AMICABLE TO A REDUCED COUNT? OR SHOULD WE JUST MOVE FORWARD? MOTION MOVE FORWARD. ALL RIGHT, SO HEARING THAT, UH, WE WILL, I APOLOGIZE. IT FAILED EIGHT TO THREE. OKAY. UM, WITH YOU FIXING THE DRIVEWAYS AND USING IMPERVIOUS, YOU MIGHT HIT THE 65% REGARDLESS. SO IF YOU COULD GET WITH STAFF AND, AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT WHAT TO DO FROM HERE. OKAY? THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE 11 MEMBERS ON THIS BOARD RIGHT NOW. WE'RE DROPPING TO, WE'RE DROPPING TO 10 AT FIVE O'CLOCK. AND WE'RE DROPPING TO NINE AT SEVEN O'CLOCK. AND SO WE ARE GOING TO START HITTING THE ONES THAT ARE, THAT HAVE DENIALS IN PLACE RIGHT NOW. UH, HATE TO DO, UH, KEEP BOUNCING AROUND LIKE THIS, BUT THE NEXT ONE UP IS ITEM NUMBER NINE, UH, 2 5 2 3 NACODOCHES ROAD. IS THE APPLICANT IN THE GALLERY? ALRIGHT, STAFF, LET'S HIT ITEM NUMBER NINE, PLEASE. WHAT'S THE NUMBER PLEASE? 2 17 2 . THIS IS B O A CASE ENDING 2 1 7. OKAY. UM, BO O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 7. LOCATE, UM, ADDRESS BEING THAT'S WRONG. UM, THE APPLICANT BEING AMO, A ANIMAL CONSULTING SERVICES AND COUCH. OBJECTION NUMBER 10. A REQUEST FOR A A 21 FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH EIGHT FEET, 10 INCHES REAR SETBACK. AND TWO, A REQUEST FOR A SIX FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW EIGHT FEET, 10 INCHES OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE WESTERN SIDE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. CURRENT ZONING IS C TWO. UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON NACODOCHES ROAD NORTH OF LOOP FOUR 10. BETWEEN THE INTERSECTIONS AND DANBURY DRIVE AND BLOSSOM DRIVE, APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED A, CONSTRUCTED A STRUCTURE WITH, WITH A PERMIT THAT ENCROACHES ONTO THE REAR SETBACK AND BUFFER. THE PERMIT APPLIED. DID NOT INDICATE ANY BUILDING EXPANSION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. STRIKE TEAM ISSUED A BUILDING INVESTIGATION ON MARCH, 2023, AN ELECTRICAL PERMANENT INVESTIGATION ON MARCH, 2023 AND A MECHANICAL INVESTIGATION ON MARCH, 2023. AND ALSO A PLUMBING INVESTIGATIONS WERE ALSO ISSUED UNTIL MARCH, 2023. THE STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED FOR OFFICE USE PURPOSES. UM, THAT IS A CURRENT PICTURE OF THE SITE PLAN, UH, WITH THE ONE AND TWOS ON THE SITE PLAN ITSELF. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE STRUCTURE, THE REAR SETBACK MEASUREMENTS AND SOME OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS FOR THE REAR SETBACK, BUFFER RINGS, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON BO O 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THIS IS, IS NOT SUITABLE AS THAT IMPOSES ON THE STRUCTURE ON THE PUBLISHED INTEREST OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR. AND BY BEING TOO CLOSE AND [02:45:01] TO THE SHARED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE AND THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDER IS NOT OBSERVED AS IT INCREASES COMMERCIAL USES CLOSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. RESIDENTIAL SIDE PROPERTY LINE, UH, THE NOTIFICATION PLAN WAS 15 NOTICES MAILED. THERE WERE ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSITION. AND THERE IS NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 200 FEET. SOME OF THE PUBLIC RESPONSES. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE 15 FOOT REAR, UH, 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. 'CAUSE IT SAYS WEST, BUT THE THINGS ANGLED 45 DEGREES. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S ON THE SHORT REAR PROPERTY LINE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S ON THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. ALL RIGHT, GREAT. THANK YOU. COULD LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD BEFORE. WAIT, WAIT, GO AHEAD. COULD HE PUT THE, UH, HI, MY NAME IS CLAY CRANE. HOLD ON, SIR. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, CAN YOU PUT THAT COMMENT UP? WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO READ IT AND IT'S NOT A IN OUR, YEAH, THAT'S THE RESTAURANT. UH, NEXT DOOR. ALL RIGHT, SIR. UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. MY NAME IS CLAY CRANE. UM, ORIGINALLY WHAT WE DID IS WE HIRED A, WE HIRED A, A GUY TO GO OUT AND LOOK AND SEE WHAT WE NEED TO DO. 'CAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF TREES, A LOT OF HUNDRED YEAR OLD TREES, AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO CUT DOWN ANY TREES, BUT WE NEEDED SOME MORE SPACE. AND SO HE CHARGED A FEE. I HAVE A CONTRACT IN THERE, $3,000 BACK IN FEBRUARY AND, AND SAID, CAME TO US AND SAID, OKAY, UH, DR. WILLIAMS. AND I SAID, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT WE CAN DO. THIS IS HOW WE CAN BUILD THIS. BUT YOU WANT SIX, YOU WANT ABOUT 12 OR 1300 SQUARE FEET, WE'RE GONNA NEED TO BUILD IT UP. THAT WAY YOU DON'T TAKE TOO MUCH OF THE, OF THE LAND. ABOUT 800. BECAUSE OUR MAIN CONCERN WAS THE TREES WE'RE NOT CUTTING DOWN THE TREES. OKAY. SO HE LINED IT ALL UP. EVERYTHING WAS LINED UP WITH THE ORIGINAL BUILDING, SO IT MADE SENSE TO US. OKAY. THEN WE, WE STARTED HIM WORKING, GAVE HIM A $50,000 DEPOSIT, WORKED OVER THERE NINE DAYS, SAID HE CAME OVER AND SAID, HEY, WHERE'S YOUR PERMITS? I'M LIKE, WELL, GOTTA BE A MISTAKE. WELL, THERE WERE NO PERMITS PULLED ON THERE. WE OBVIOUSLY KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T DO A JOB WITHOUT PERMITS. YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET ELECTRICITY, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET WATER, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET ANY OF THOSE THINGS. BUT I DON'T KNOW. NOW, AS FAR AS THE NEIGHBORS, I HAVE A LETTER FROM THE ONE NEIGHBOR THAT HAS THE HOUSE BACK THERE ON THIS SIDE RIGHT HERE. I BUILT NO, NO WINDOWS. SO IF YOU WERE UP ON THE TOP STORY, YOU COULDN'T SEE IN THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD. OKAY. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS A RESTAURANT OVER HERE WITH A 35 FOOT BUILDING OVER HERE. I GUESS THE PEOPLE THAT OPPOSE IT, THEY GOT A 35 FOOT BUT COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING BACK THERE. THEN WE HAVE A CONVENIENCE STORE ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS, IS OUR NEIGHBOR. AND THEN, LIKE I SAID, PURPOSELY, WE DIDN'T BUILD ANY WINDOWS UP THERE. SO IF SOMEBODY WAS UPSTAIRS, THEY'RE NOT LOOKING IN THEIR BACKYARD. SO OUR MAIN CONCERN, AND WHAT I THOUGHT WE COULD DO MAYBE NOW IS BUILD A FIREWALL IF IT WERE TOO CLOSE. BUT IT'S THE SAME DISTANCE. AND I KNOW THIS WAS BUILT IN THE FIFTIES, THE ORIGINAL BUILDING, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT IT'S THE SAME EXACT DISTANCE. OUR BUILDING WAS THERE FIRST AND THEY BUILT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING THERE. AND IN THE BACK BUILDING THAT WE WERE BUILDING IS THE EXACT SAME DISTANCE AS THE RESTAURANT IS FROM OUR BUILDING. SO IT MADE SENSE WHEN THE GUY SAID, THIS IS HOW WE GOTTA DO IT. YEAH. YEAH. THE, AND THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH YOU BEING THAT CLOSE TO THE C TWO TO THE RESTAURANT. IT'S SIMPLY, AND BACK TO THE R SIX. AND YOU HAVE A, YOU HAVE AN EMAIL OR A COMMUNICATION FROM THE NEIGHBOR THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE TO THE YES, I HAVE IT HERE. IF YOU COULD SHOW THAT TO US. I HAVE, YES. THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. ARE YOU GONNA PROJECT THAT OR DO YOU HAVE IT ELECTRONICALLY? WE DID, WE PROJECTED IT. OH, I'M SORRY. I WAS LOOKING, STARING ON MY SCREEN. I WAS WAITING FOR IT TO POP UP OVER THERE. AND WE DID CONFIRM 26 42 IS THE ADDRESS. ALL RIGHT. UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YEAH. SO IN REGARDS TO THE CONTRACTOR THAT YOU ENGAGED TO THIS, I MEAN, HE STILL INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT? NO. OKAY. THEN YOU REALIZED INTENT YEARS THAT YOU'LL COMPLY WITH ALL THE CURRENT BUILDING CODE. SURE. FIRE, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL CODE IN ORDER FOR SURE. ORDER THE PROJECT FORWARD. UNFORTUNATELY THAT HAPPENS. RIGHT. COULD WE GET THE NAME OF THAT CONTRACTOR JUST FOR THE RECORD? UH, IT WAS PPP CONSTRUCTION. PAUL PENA PPP CONSTRUCTION, P P CONSTRUCTION. [02:50:01] OKAY. PAUL PENA CONSTRUCTION. OKAY. AND 50 GRAND DOWN THE WORLD? YEAH. P AS IN PAUL? YES. YEAH. AND THEN WHAT, WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF THIS STRUCTURE? THE SHORT SIDE? HOW WIDE IS IT? WELL, IT'S, IT'S 800 SQUARE FEET ON THE BOTTOM. SO I WANNA SAY IT'S MAYBE 20 BY 40 OR 20 BY 20. NO, THAT'D BE 420 BY 40. 20 BY 40. THAT'S CORRECT. ALRIGHT. JUST CURIOUS, UH, IS THERE ANY OF THE, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? IT'S GOTTA BE 75 FEET AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORS. YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. UM, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY ANYBODY SIGNED TO SPEAK? NO, THERE'S NOT. ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION O ZUNI COMMISSIONER ZUNI, AND, AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, IT, IT, IT'S 800 SQUARE FOOT TOTAL OF ABOUT 20 FOOT WIDTH. SO IF YOU WANTED TO LIMIT ON YOUR MOTION TO LET'S SAY NO MORE THAN 25 FEET, THAT IT COULD, IT COULD EXTEND INTO THE BUFFER OR THE SETBACK THAT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL OFFICIAL REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 2 1 7. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF JUSTIN GRANITE REQUEST FOR ONE A 21 FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 30 YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH AN EIGHT FOOT 10 INCH REAR SETBACK. UM, I GUESS THAT'S WHERE YOU WANNA SAY NO MORE THAN 25 FOOT VARIANCE OF WIDTH. YEAH. OKAY. WITH AND TO A REQUEST FOR A SIX FOOT TWO VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT 10 INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE SITUATED 25 23 NECK OF OCHE ROAD. YEAH. ALSO LIMITED TO 25 FEET, UH, AS PURSUANT TO THE NUMBER ONE VARIANCE, THE APPLICANT BEING ALAMO CONSULTING SERVICES, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C HAS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRACTED TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY, IS REPRESENTED BY RESTRICTED REAR SETBACK AND BUMPER YARD. TO PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL USE LOT AND A BUDDING RESIDENTIAL LOT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THE REAR SETBACK AND BUFFER YARD, UH, TO BE EIGHT FOOT 10 INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. STAFF FINDS ASSISTANCE IS SUITABLE AS THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IN QUESTION TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF FINDS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY THEN AND THERE BEING AN ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL ZONE PROPERTY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED. THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE STRUCTURE CANNOT BE MET. UH, WITH A 20 FOOT MINIMUM MIRROR SETBACK AT 15 MINIMUM LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIRED DUE TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE NEW ADDITION FOR THE VARIANCE IS NOT AUTHORIZED, UH, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES, NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITH THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALL TO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE ADDITION, UH, WILL BE EIGHT FEET, 10 INCHES FROM THE REAR AND HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT 10 INCH LANDSCAPE BUFFER. THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT AND SEEK SUPPLY OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE SAW IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE PRO OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, UH, BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. IN ADDITION, MAINTAINING A 20, UH, FOOT REAR SETBACK IS DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE. THE REQUEST IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA. UH, COMMISSIONER ZUNA? UH, YES. SO I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION IS READ. UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, PROVIDED TESTIMONY, UM, WHEREBY, YOU KNOW, HE'S, HE'S TRYING TO SITUATE THE BUILDING TO, UH, MAINTAIN THE TREES, AVOID HAVING TO CUT DOWN THE EXCESS TREES. IT KEEPS THE EXISTING, UM, UH, BUILDING LINE OF, OF THE, OF THE HOUSE AND WHAT WAS, YOU KNOW, THAT BUILDING LINE STAYS CONSISTENT AND HE'S MAKING, UM, UH, HE'S MAKING A, A AMENDMENT MODIFICATIONS TO THE BUILDING TO AVOID ANY WINDOWS OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD LOOK ON THAT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. UH, SO TO KEEP THE, I GUESS THE PRIVACY, UH, THERE KIND OF MAINTAINED. AND THEN OF COURSE IT'LL NEED TO HAVE APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES NEED TO BE MET, INCLUDING FIRE, SAFETY, PLUMBING, ALL THE OTHER CODES. SO I THINK IT'S A, IT'S A GOOD GOOD MOVE HERE. COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA. SAME. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? UH, I'LL JUST STATE THAT I'M IN FAVOR ONLY BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVES HASN'T ROTATE THIS BUILDING 90 DEGREES AND REMOVE SOME PRETTY NICE LOOKING OAK TREES. SO WITH A, UH, WITH LIMITATION OF 25 FEET, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. I HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BROWN. YES. MR. MENCHACA? I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ [02:55:01] I CONCUR. MS. BENAVIDES I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR. MOTION PASSES 11 TO ZERO. UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE A, UH, ALTERNATE COMING IN AT FIVE O'CLOCK AS WELL, SO WE CAN MAINTAIN OUR 11 COUNT SO WE CAN GO BACK TO THE, TO THE AGENDA. WE'RE ON ITEM SIX. THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. CASE ENDING IN 2 1 2. GOOD AFTERNOON, MARK CHAZ ZONING PLANNER. UH, THIS IS, THIS IS CASE BO A DASH 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 2. UH, ADDRESS BEING 5,900 LAKE PLACID CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT TWO APPLICANT BEING CARLOS VARGAS. A REQUEST FOR A SIX FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SIDE BACK TO ALLOW A DETACHED CARPORT TO BE THREE FOOT SIX INCH FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. UH, CURRENTLY ZONED R SIX. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG LAKE PLACID, NEAR US, HIGHWAY 87 ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO, AND HAS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A CORNER LOT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO A CARPORT TO BE THREE FOOT, SIX FOOT, THREE FOOT SIX INCH FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. A CARPORT PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN JULY OF 23. 2023. HOWEVER, ONCE INFORMED ABOUT THE INACCURATE MEASUREMENTS INDICATING THE LOCATION OF THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A VARIANCE APPLICATION. ANYTIME A STRUCTURE IMPEDES INTO THE SETBACK, IT IS MANDATORY THEY OBTAIN A VARIANCE. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN WITH THE CARPORT AND THE VARIANCE IN THE BOTTOM SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SURROUNDING AREAS. SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN THE FRONT SETBACK STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO O DASH 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE CARPORT ALLOWS FOR A SUITABLE SPACING AND STORMWATER MITIGATION. TWO. WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT A SIZABLE CARPORT TO FIT THE VEHICLES. THIS CONCLUDES STATUS, ACTUALLY, NO, SORRY, 26 NOTICES WERE MAILED. ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE LAKESIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, PUBLIC RESPONSE. SO THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S ORIENTATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, MR. APPLICANT, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SIR, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S CARLOS VARGAS. AND, UM, WANT TO GET THE VARIANCE, 'CAUSE I WANNA BUILD A 20 BY 19 AND A HALF STEEL CARPORT. AND THE FRONT OF MY PROPERTY FROM THE, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE SIDEWALK IS ONLY 26 FEET. AND TO PUT, PUT A CARPORT AT 20 BY 20. AND THE WAY THEY, THE, THE, THE CITY STATES THAT I GOTTA BE 10 FEET FROM THE SIDEWALK, THOSE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS SIDEWALK. I, I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A POST RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT CARPORT. I WOULD NEED IT REALLY ON THE CORNERS TO MAINTAIN A STEEL, A COMPLETE STEEL CARPORT. SO TO MEASURE IT, I DID, I WOULD'VE TO GO IN FROM THE SIDEWALK, 2042 INCHES WAS THREE AND A HALF FEET FOR THE, FOR THE BEAM. AND THEN IT'S NOT GONNA BE ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE. IT'S GONNA BE RIGHT UP TO THE, TO WHERE THE GUTTER IS ABOUT TWO INCHES AWAY FROM THE GUTTER, THE EIGHT BY TWO SEA CHANNEL WITH, UH, FOUR BY FOUR METAL POSTS. YOU SAID YOU HAD, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, SIR. YOU SAID 26 FEET FROM THE FACE OF YOUR GARAGE TO THE, TO THE, UH, SIDEWALK. TO THE SIDEWALK. DID THE CITY EXPLAIN THAT IF YOU PUT YOUR POST 10 FEET AWAY, YOU CAN, YOU CAN CANTILEVER OVERHANG FIVE FEET BEYOND THE POST AND HAVE THAT STILL BE ACCEPTABLE? NO SIR, THEY DIDN'T. BUT, UH, I STILL DON'T SEE HOW THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HAVE TO STICK OUT TOO MUCH OF THAT CHANNEL WAY OVER TO ME. IT DON'T, IT DON'T SEEM TO ME. I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST SAYING IF YOU PUT THAT POST 16 FEET AWAY FROM YOUR GARAGE AND THEN OVERHANG FIVE, YOU'D BE AT THE 20. UH, I WOULD'VE TO, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ALL THAT, SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH, COLIN, SO , SO WHAT HAPPENS IS YOUR CARPORT IS REQUIRED TO BE 10 FEET AWAY, BUT YOU CAN HAVE A POST 10 FEET AWAY, AND THEN YOU CAN OVERHANG THE CARPORT FIVE FEET PAST THAT POST AND WITHIN THAT 10 FEET, AND THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. THAT STILL WOULDN'T GIMME THAT 20 FOOT CARPORT? IT WOULD, IT WOULD, MM-HMM. , I'LL HAVE TO FIGURE, FIGURE THAT OUT THEN. OKAY. I MEAN, I [03:00:01] KNOW THAT A FIVE FOOT CANTILEVER IS, IS A, A BIG DEAL, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, IF, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WHAT THIS BOARD WILL DO IS OFFER A THREE OR FOUR FOOT VARIANT SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT MUCH OF A CANTILEVER. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THE BOARD CAN DISCUSS AT A LATER TIME. BUT, UM, LET'S, LET'S CONTINUE ON, SIR. UH, WITH, WITH YOUR CASES OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE TO US. UH, THAT'S IT, SIR. I DON'T, YOU KNOW, UH, OKAY. MY WIFE AND I THINK, WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN'T GET IT DONE. I DON'T KNOW, SIR. I JUST DON'T KNOW, SIR. I UNDERSTAND. UH, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA? OKAY. UM, IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE SEAL, RIGHT? YES, SIR. IT'S A FULL, FULL FOUR POSTS WITH A EIGHT BY TWO C CHANNEL AND METAL ROOFING ON TOP. OKAY. THE METAL ROOF GOING TO BE FLAT. IT'S, WELL THAT WHAT THEY USE IN THEM BIG BUILDINGS THAT KINDA, THAT SMALL, UH, SIX INCH DEALS THERE, BUT IT GOES UP LIKE THAT BY ABOUT AN INCH AND A HALF. SO IT'LL BE A RUNOFF TOO? YES, SIR. OKAY. YOU GONNA PUT GUTTERS ON IT? YES, SIR. ON GUTTER. ON THE GUTTER, ON THE, ON THE, YOU KNOW, ON THE STREET SIDE. AND, UH, WHAT WAS THE CHAIRMAN WAS INSTRUCTING YOU ABOUT? HERE'S A ROOF AND, AND HERE'S THE PULSES, THE COLUMNS, SO YOU CAN COME FIVE FEET OUT. WELL, SO I'M GONNA HAVE, I WAS GONNA PUT ONE, ONE PULSE RIGHT THERE BY WHERE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHERE IT SHOWS THE GUTTER. I WAS GONNA BE ABOUT TWO INCHES FROM THE POLE. CAN YOU GET THE LINE ON UP, UP WHERE IT SHOWS SEVEN FOOT, 11 INCHES, SIR? UH, WE HAVE A LASER POINTER YOU CAN USE TO, UH, UNDERNEATH THE DOOR. OH, OKAY. I'M SORRY. THERE'S A BUTTON RIGHT HERE ON THE SIDE. YOU PUSH THAT. OKAY. RIGHT HERE. I WAS GONNA PUT THE FIRST, THE POST NEXT TO THE HOUSE, BUT IT'S GONNA BE ABOUT TWO INCHES AWAY FROM THE GUTTER, THE, THE SEAT CHANNEL AND EVERYTHING. AND THEN I WANTED THAT OTHER POST RIGHT, RIGHT HERE, WHICH IS AT 42 INCHES. BUT YOU'RE SAYING COME BACK FROM HERE TO 10 FEET, IT'S GONNA PUT IT ABOUT RIGHT THERE. SO I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT WOULD WORK. OKAY. YOU, YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN PERMITS YET? I BOUGHT THE PERMITS ALREADY. I BOUGHT THE PERMIT BEFORE I FOUND OUT ABOUT THAT 10 FOOT. YEAH, SOMETIMES IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE CONSTRUCT SOMETHING BACK AS SOON AS I FOUND OUT I WENT RIGHT BACK, YOU KNOW, CAME BACK THE NEXT DAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. SO, UM, SIR, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GOING TO, THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENTARY, RIGHT? NO, THERE'S NOT. OKAY. SO WE'RE GONNA DELIBERATE AND WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT. YES, SIR. UH, SO I'M LOOKING FOR A, A MOTION ON THIS AND, AND RIGHT NOW HE'S ASKING FOR A, A THREE FOOT SIX, UH, VARI, UH, I'M SORRY, A SIX FOOT, SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT FRONT. UH, THAT'S, THAT'S, IF THAT'S, IF THE POST WAS GONNA BE LOCATED AT THE END, SO IF THE POST WAS SET BACK, THAT VARIANCE CAN BE REDUCED. HOLD ON A SECOND, SIR. SO, UH, IF A COMMISSIONER, UH, WAS WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR, FOR, UH, SIX FOOT, SIX INCHES OR LESS, IT WOULD, IT WOULD STILL BE A FUNCTIONAL CARPORT AND ATTAIN THE 20 FEET HE'S LOOKING FOR. UH, AND I USUALLY DON'T DO THIS, BUT IS THERE'S SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO ADD, SIR, BEFORE WE CONTINUE? NO, YOU SAID I WANTED SIX FOOT BACK. NO, I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND YOU THERE PARTLY. OH, NO, I'M, IT IS JUST THE SPECIFICS OF, OF WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY ASKING BOARDS. I HAVE TO BE READ A CERTAIN WAY. YES, SIR. UH, SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A, UH, TAKE A STAB AT THIS ONE? , HE'S, I MEAN, I'LL DO IT JUST ON CAMERA. , I GUESS I CAN, I HEARD HIM. OKAY. SO HE'S, HE'S ASKING FOR A SIX FOOT SIX VARIANCE, BUT YOU KNOW, A, A FOUR FOOT SIX VARIANCE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2303 3 0 0 2 1 2, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT REQUEST FOR FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A DETACHED CARPORT TO BE THREE FEET, SIX INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED 5,900 LAKE PLACID APPLICANT BEING CARLOS VARGAS. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT WATER RUNOFF AND ADEQUATE SPACING BETWEEN PROPERTIES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOWING THE DETACHED CARPORT TO BE THREE FEET, SIX INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THE CARPET WILL NOT BE CONTRARY AS A MITIGATION OF STORM [03:05:01] WATER RUNOFF WILL FALL ON THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AND WON'T INTERFERE WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, THE SPECIAL CONDITION FOUND ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE SIZE OF THE LOT. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS 10 FEET RESULTING IN THE VARIANCE BEING NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARPORT. THE APPLICANT WOULD UNDERGO A HARDSHIP WITHOUT A VARIANCE AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIZABLE CAR PORTED TO FIT THEIR VEHICLES WILL BE UNATTAINABLE. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS A CARPORT WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY AND IS ABIDING BY ALL OTHER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ELIGIBLE ONCE NOTIFIED ABOUT THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE THE APPLICANT HALTED, CONSTRUCTED TO OBTAIN ONE, ALL OF WHICH APPEARS TO OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CARRIAGE OF THE DISTRICT WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE CARPORT WILL BE THREE FEET, SIX INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THIS WILL NOT INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR OTHER CARPO CARPORTS IMPOSING INTO THE SETBACK. WERE, WERE FOUND IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY THAT REQUESTED THAT SEEMED TO BE OUTTA CHARACTER WITH THE DISTRICT AND HIS HARMONIOUS WAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SIX APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS. AND THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, STAFF FINDS SUPPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS LIMITED SPACING ON THE PROPERTY. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. WELL, I THINK WITH THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING, I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH HIM HAVING THIS CARPORT. THANK YOU. AND, AND COMMISSIONER CRUZ, CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU READ? IT WAS, IT WAS FOR HOW MUCH OF A VARIANCE? SORRY? FOUR FOUR P SIX INCHES. RIGHT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA THE SAME. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO, TO ADD? WHAT WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE APPLICANT WAS ASKING FOR A THREE FOOT SIX, UH, UH, I'M SORRY, SIX FOOT, SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. UH, BUT IT WAS READ TO BE A FOUR FOOT SIX VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT SETBACK. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE CONVERSATION? AND SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT THAT MEANS THAT THE DETACHED CARPORT WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE FIVE FEET SIX INCHES FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. YES. SO WITH THAT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA? YES. CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. BROWN. I CONCUR. MR. OKAY. CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MS. EZ I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. YES, I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, MOTION PASSES. SO WHAT HAPPENS, SIR, IS, IS THAT, UH, YOU, YOU DIDN'T GET EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED FOR. IT HAS TO BE TWO FEET A LITTLE FURTHER BACK, BUT YOU CAN STILL HAVE SOME OVERHANG. SO I GO TO ACHIEVE THE CURVE. I'M GO BACK FIVE FEET YOU SAID? UH, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, YOU HAVE TO GO. YOU HAVE TO GO. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT. THE PROPERTY LINE, THE POST POST HAS TO BE, UH, FOUR, UM, FOUR FOOT SIX INCHES AWAY FROM, I'M SORRY, FIVE FOOT SIX INCHES. FIVE SIX. OKAY, BACK. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. YES, SIR. ALRIGHT, HAVE A GOOD EVENING. ALL RIGHT. ITEM SEVEN. I AM I MEEN BO. A 23 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 3. UM, LOCATED AT 1 3 9 VALDEZ AVENUE COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, APPLICANT BEING, UM, JIMENEZ A REQUEST FOR [03:10:01] A ONE, A 15 FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 25 IN ADDITION TO BE FOUR FEET 10 INCHES FROM THE REAR SETBACK WITH A ONE FOOT EIGHT INCH OVERHANG AND TWO, A TWO FOOT THREE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO BE TWO FEET NINE INCHES FROM THE SIDE SETBACK WITH AN EIGHT INCH OVERHANG. CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ALONG VALANCE AVENUE AND CURRENTLY HAS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE APPLICANT IS CONSTRUCTING AN ADDITION THAT WILL CONNECT THE MAIN STRUCTURE, WHICH WILL REQUIRE VARIANCES FOR THE REAR AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS DUE TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY LINES. UM, A ZONING UT C INVESTIGATION WAS ISSUED FOR THE ADDITION ENCROACHING THE REAR SETBACKS AND REAR AND SIDE SETBACKS IN ABUTS OF VACANT COMMERCIAL LOTS TO THE REAR. THAT IS A CURRENT PICTURE OF THE SITE PLAN WITH THE ONES AND TWOS ON ON THE PLANS, WHICH WOULD BE LOCATED TO THE TOP OF THAT PAGE. SO THAT IS A PICTURE OF CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE ADDITION THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED. SO THE REAR SETBACK WITH SOME, WITH THE OVERHANGS BEING SHOWN AND THE SIDE SETBACK WITH THE OVERHANG BEING SHOWN AND SOME OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AND BO O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 3. BASING FOLLOW FINDINGS OF FACTS FOR THE REAR AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES. UM, ONE DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND THE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THEN TWO FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THERE WERE 28 NOTICES MAILED OUT. THERE WAS ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND TOBIN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. THAT CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. OKAY. UH, BEFORE YOU GO, UM, I NOTICED THAT THE ADDITION IS IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. IS THERE SOME SECTION OF THE CODE THAT THAT NATURALLY ALLOWS THIS SORT OF THING? UM, I THOUGHT THERE WAS, IF IT ISN'T, IF IT'S UNDER THREE FEET. IF IT'S UNDER THREE FEET. OKAY. AND THE EIGHT INCH OVERHANG IS IN EXCESS OF THE TWO FOOT NINE OR IS IT TWO FOOT? YES. TWO, TWO FOOT NINE INCHES. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN? YEAH, THE THE BUT DIDN'T IT ALSO HAVE AN EIGHT INCH OVERHANG? CORRECT. IS THAT EIGHT INCH OVERHANG MAKE IT TWO FOOT ONE TWO FOOT? YES. WITH THE OVERHANG. OH, THE APPLICANT HAS JUST SPOKEN THAT IT'S NOT CORRECT AND WE'LL HEAR FROM HIM. OKAY. MOMENTARILY. ALL RIGHT. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? OH, ZUNA. RIGHT. COMMISSIONER ZUNA. UH, JUST A QUESTION IN TERMS OF LIKE BUILDING PERMIT. THIS WASN'T CAUGHT DURING THE PERMITTING STAGE OR THIS WAS TOO SMALL OF AN ADDITION. MAYBE THERE'S A NUMBER OF PERMITS OF PERMITS THAT WERE PULLED, BUT UM, PERHAPS THE APPLICANT CAN CLARIFY TRADE, THEY'RE TRADE TYPE PERMITS VERSUS YEAH, THEY'RE ALL TRADE PERMITS. YEAH. MM-HMM. . ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, HEARING NONE, UH, WE'LL HAVE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME FORWARD AND, UH, TELL US YOUR NAME AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. SO MY NAME'S JARED BAKER. I'M ACTUALLY NOT THE APPLICANT. I'M THE CONTRACTOR JUST HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. UM, TO CLARIFY AS FAR AS WHAT THE PERMITTING STAGE, SO WHAT UH, HAPPENED WAS THERE WAS ACTUALLY AN EXISTING ADDITION. THERE WAS POORLY DONE. UM, SO ORIGINALLY WE PULLED A MINOR REPAIR PERMIT ON THE PROPERTY. AS WE WERE DOING CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS JUST COMPLETELY BAD. FOUNDATION WAS BAD FRAMING, SO WE ESSENTIALLY HAD TO REDO THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. UM, UPON DOING THAT, WE ALSO GOT NOTICE OF AN INVESTIGATION FROM, I GUESS THE NEIGHBOR WHO HAD A COMPLAINT JUST BECAUSE IT WAS, IT WAS A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE. UM, SO ONCE WE GOT THE NOTICE, I CAME DOWN TO THE CITY. UM, AND ORIGINALLY THE INVESTIGATION FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WAS FOR THE SIDE SETBACK. UM, JUST WITH IT BEING WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK. SO AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, UM, THEY WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO APPROVE THE PERMIT DUE TO THE FACT OF THE, UM, INLINE ADDITION ON THAT SIDE. UM, BUT THEN THEY NOTICED THE REAR SETBACK. UM, SO THAT'S HOW COME THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY TOLD US TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE, THE VARIANCE. UM, AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. SO, QUICK QUESTION, ARE YOU RENOVATING THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OR JUST THE ADDITION PART? SO WE'RE RENOVATING THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. UM, SO WE PULLED A MINOR REPAIR FOR THE FRONT. UM, AND SO IT'S, YEAH, IT'S A FULL GUT. I MEAN, WE'RE, WE WE'RE DOING IT, THE CODE THAT CHANGED THAT TALKS ABOUT RESIDENTIAL HAS TO EXCEED 50% OF THE FOOTPRINT FOR THIS TO, FOR THE NEW CODES TO BE BROUGHT UP. IS, IS HOW IS IT LOOKED AT BY [03:15:01] STAFF? BECAUSE IF HE'S, IF, IF YOU'RE REPAIRING SOMETHING MM-HMM. AND NOT RENOVATING SOMETHING, I MEAN, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU'RE RENOVATING THE WHOLE HOUSE, BUT IF YOU, I'M LOOKING AT AN AERIAL VIEW AND THAT ADDITION'S THERE ALREADY. YEAH, EXACTLY. AND SO IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU'RE NOT MESSING WITH MORE THAN 50% OF THE ACTUAL FOOTPRINT MM-HMM. , THEN YOU WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED. CORRECT. BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT HE'S TELLING YOU IS THAT THE, THE WORK WAS MORE EXTENSIVE THAN THEY THOUGHT ONCE THEY GOT IN THERE. 'CAUSE HE, HE DID APPLY FOR A MINOR BUILDING REPAIR. SO WHAT ARE YOU DOING? SO THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT IF, IF YOU WERE DOING SOME, SOME REAL WORK, UH, ON 50, LESS THAN 50% OF THE STRUCTURE, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE. YEAH, EXACTLY. BUT IF, IF, YOU KNOW, PAINTING DOESN'T COUNT. CORRECT. I MEAN, SO WHAT, WHAT, WHAT DO WE, WHEN YOU SAY RENOVATION, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? UM, SO WE'VE COMPLETELY OPENED UP THE WALLS AND, UM, FROM A FRAMING STANDPOINT, I WOULD SAY WE'VE PROBABLY REFRAMED MOSTLY THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. SO MAYBE 30, 40% OF IT. UM, WE'VE REMOVED THE SIDING, SO WE'VE HAD TO DO, YOU KNOW, STRUCTURAL WIND BRACING AND THINGS THERE. UM, NEW ROOF, ALL NEW ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HVAC. SO, UM, IT'S EXTENSIVE. UM, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IT THE CORRECT WAY. I MEAN, ONCE WE STARTED OPENING UP WALLS, WE WERE LIKE, WE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T SAVE THIS THING. SO, NO, I, I UNDERSTAND. I I JUST WITH THE, WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THIS, YOU KNOW, BEFORE IT WAS BASED ON VALUE AND IT WAS EASY TO TEST MM-HMM. . BUT WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT, UM, 50% OF A, UM, UH, I'M TRYING TO, I'M WHAT STATUTE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT, I, I'M LOOKING FOR THAT SECTION OF THE CODE. IS THAT WHERE IT SAYS IN NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT, WHICH LESS THAN 50% OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS DESTROYED OR DAMAGED, MAY BE REBUILT? OR IS THERE ANOTHER PROVISION? I THINK IT, YEAH, NO, THAT'S THE ONE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FIVE 17, I THINK, RIGHT? OR NO, SEVEN. SEVEN. YEAH, BECAUSE TWO OR THREE, BECAUSE THIS, THIS, THIS THING SAYS IT'S DESTROYED OR DAMAGED, MAY BE REBUILT AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN A YEAR. BUT I MEAN, DESTROYED OR DAMAGED, THAT KIND OF LETS, IT'S LIKE BOLT A LIGHTNING OR A FLOOD, NOT ME PULLING A PERMIT AND FIXING SOMETHING. DILAPIDATED . YEAH, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE. I'M TRYING TO, I THOUGHT THERE WAS A MAYBE ANOTHER SECTION, UM, THAT DEALT WITH THAT. BUT IF THAT'S THE ONLY SECTION, I MEAN, ARE Y'ALL SURE THAT, THAT HE NEEDS TO, UH, BE HERE THEN? I MEAN, YES. APPARENTLY THE REPAIRS WERE EXTENSIVE ENOUGH THAT PERMITTING PUSHED HIM TO, UH, THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS. OKAY. DOES, DOES ANYBODY ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS? I I WANT TO READ THAT AGAIN. THE SECTION, UH, IN PLAY HERE IS, UM, I'M READING FROM SECTION, UH, 35 7 0 6, TERMINATION OF NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS, UH, AND SUBSECTION E BY DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE OF STRUCTURE. AND THE PROVISION THAT TALKS ABOUT HOME SAYS A NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT IN WHICH LE WHICH LESS THAN 50% OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS DESTROYED OR DAMAGED, MAY BE REBUILT. SO THE CITY IS SAYING THAT IN THE DILAPIDATED STATE, IT'S CONSIDERED DAMAGED, I GUESS BY TIME. UH, AND, AND THAT'S WHERE IT'S KICKING IN? I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T, I DON'T PERSONALLY AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK REPAIR IS REPAIR, DESTRUCTION IS SOMETHING ELSE. , BUT, UH, OKAY. BUT THAT'S UP FOR US TO DECIDE. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? CRUZ COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UH, SO WE'RE, YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE STRUCTURE HAD BEEN EMPTY FOR A LONG WHILE. IS THAT WHY THEY DECIDED TO START THE RENOVATIONS? UH, NO. MY CLIENT RECENTLY PURCHASED THE HOME AND UPON PURCHASING THE HOME, WE BEGAN RENOVATIONS AND WE STARTED OPENING WALLS AND REALIZED THAT THE ADDITION WAS NOT PROPERLY DONE. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO KNOW. THANK YOU. SO THE PERMITS THAT YOU PULLED WAS FOR GENERAL REPAIR? YEAH. THE PERMITS THAT WE, THAT WE PULLED, WE PULLED A MINOR REPAIR AND UNDERNEATH THE MINOR, MINOR REPAIR WE HAD IN THERE THAT STRUCTURAL WORK WOULD BE DONE, UM, INCLUDING FOUNDATION FRAMING. UM, WE WERE GONNA BE MOVING WALLS, UM, REPLACING WINDOWS, DOORS, THOSE KIND OF THINGS. BUT THAT ONLY COVERS LIKE, I GUESS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. SO THE CITY CONSIDERED IT, I'M SORRY, THE PERMITTING CONSIDERED IT AN ADDITION. ONCE WE TORE, THEY ESSENTIALLY HAD TO TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN THE BACK AND REBUILD IT. SO AT THAT POINT THEY REQUIRE A DIFFERENT, A DIFFERENT PERMIT. RIGHT. SO DID YOU PULL, UH, PERMITS FOR PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL? WE'VE ALREADY PULLED PLUMBINGS. OKAY. PERMITS FOR PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL. AND WE'LL BE PULLING AN HVAC PERMIT AS WELL. MECHANICAL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A SIDE QUESTION. COMMISSIONER MENKA, UH, THAT, UH, PECAN TREE THAT'S HERE? MM-HMM. , YOU GOT THAT EIGHT FOOT FENCE? [03:20:01] IS THAT A BIG DOG JUMPING OVER THAT WHERE? I'M SORRY. , I'M LOOKING AT GOOGLE AND TO THE LEFT OF THE HOUSE, YOU GOT THAT EIGHT FOOT FENCE, BUT YOU CAN'T SEE IT HERE 'CAUSE OF THE TREE UHHUH, IS IT STILL THERE? JUST CURIOUS. THE TREE IS STILL THERE. NO, THE FENCE. OH, THE FENCE. YEAH. UM, THE FENCE IS STILL THERE. YEAH. FROM MAY 22, IT SHOWS THAT. YEAH. EIGHT FOOT FENCE. YES. THAT THE, OH, THAT, THE TALL FENCE THAT'S NOT THERE CURRENTLY. UM, BUT THE FENCE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD SEE I AT THE POINTER, BUT IT, UM, YEAH, THE FENCE, YOU CAN LEAVE IT THERE. YEAH. THAT, THAT FENCE RIGHT THERE IS STILL THERE. BUT THIS PART IS TALLER I WANT IS NOT, YEAH. AND THAT FENCE RIGHT THERE IS A STANDARD, YOU KNOW, SIX FOOT FENCE THAT RUNS ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. HEARING NONE, UH, WE HAVE ANY VOICEMAILS OR CITIZEN SIGN OF A SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND DELIBERATE ABOUT THIS AND SEE HOW IT TURNS OUT. OKAY. SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. UH, ANY COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE. ALL RIGHT, BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER B O A DASH TWO THREE DASH 0 3 0 2 3. IS THAT RIGHT? YES. YES. OKAY. I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR ONE, A 15 FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO BE FOUR FOOT 10 INCHES FROM THE REAR SETBACK WITH, WITH A ONE FOOT EIGHT INCH OVERHANG AND TWO, A TWO FOOT THREE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO BE TWO FOOT NINE INCH FROM THE SIDE SETBACK WITH AN EIGHT INCH OVERHANG SITUATED AT 1 3 9 VALDEZ AVENUE. APPLICANT BEING, UH, JORGE JIMENEZ, BECAUSE OF THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE ROOF SETBACK OF 20 FEET ON A SIDE SETBACK OF FIVE FEET CANNOT BE MET DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT. THE STRUCTURE WILL MAINTAIN A REASONABLE DISTANCE FROM SURROUNDING STRUCTURES, THEREFORE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF FINDS A HARDSHIP DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT, A NEW ADDITION CANNOT BE BUILT WHILE STILL MAINTAINING THE BASE DISTRICT'S SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED WITH THE PROPOSED SETBACKS. THE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO MAINTAIN A NEW ROOM ADDITION WHILE STILL CLOSELY ALIGNING TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACT OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE ADDITION WILL BE FOUR FEET, 10 INCHES FROM THE ROOT PROPERTY LINE AND TWO FEET NINE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. SIMILAR STRUCTURES AND LOT SIZES ARE OBSERVED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STREET. THEREFORE, THE RECORD REQUEST WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 'CAUSE OF THE PLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, MAINTAINING A 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK AND A FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO A NEW ADDITION, IT'S UNATTAINABLE. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER BRANDMAN. UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. UM, BASICALLY THEY'RE JUST REPLACING THE ADDITION THAT WAS ALREADY THERE, BUT IT'LL BE IN MUCH BETTER CONDITION. IT'LL BE UP TO CODE WITH NEW ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HVAC. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YEAH, I SUPPORT FOR THE SAME REASONS. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? UM, I'D LIKE TO JUST SAY THAT I STILL DON'T THINK HE HAS TO BE HERE. I THINK THAT HE DOESN'T MEET THE, THE PREMISE OF THAT CODE, BUT AS WRITTEN, BUT THAT'S JUST MY 2 CENTS. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. [03:25:01] MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MENCHACA? I CONCUR. MS. BROWN? YES. MR. DEAN? I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR. MS. ES I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GIVE WITH STAFF? OKAY. THANK, THANKS. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. CASE ENDING IN 2 1 5. UM, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 2 1 5. UM, LOCATED AT 2 2 1 5 SOUTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10. AND COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER TWO, APPLICANT BEING CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES. A REQUEST FOR A 25 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE. CURRENT ZONING IS I ONE, EXCUSE ME. UH, CHAIR? YES. UH, MS. BROWN NEEDS TO LEAVE AT FIVE, SO SHE'S GONNA GO AHEAD AND EXCUSE HERSELF NOW. ALRIGHT. UH, MS. MS. BROWN IS COMMISSIONER BROWN HAS LEFT THE MEETING AT 4 46 AND, UM, AND WE HAVE AN ALTERNATE, IS IT ALTERNATE AVAILABLE NOW OR SHOULD WE WAIT TILL FIVE? WELL, LET'S KEEP, LET'S, LET'S KEEP GOING, LET'S MOVE FORWARD AT THE, IT'S AT FIVE. WE HAVE SOMEONE COMING ON AT FIVE. OKAY, LET'S, LET'S CONTINUE ON. UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG FOUR 10 ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF CHINA NEAR CHINA GROVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE IN ORDER TO FACILITATE A DRIVE THROUGH AREA FOR A PROPOSED FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT. THE BUFFER REDUCTION REQUESTED BORDER REQUESTED BORDERS COMMERCIAL USES THE PRIMARY USE FOR THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE PROPERTIES, UH, IN THE SURROUNDING AREA ARE FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS. UH, CURRENT PICTURE OF THE SITE PLAN WHERE THE NUMBER ONE IS, WHERE THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THAT DRIVE THROUGH FOR THE FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT. SUBJECT PROPERTY AS IT IS A VACANT LOT AND, AND SOME OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND PROPOSED RESTAURANT NEXT DOOR LANDSCAPE BUFFER VARIANCE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A 23 1 0 3 0 2 1 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REDUCED BUFFERS REQUESTED BORDER, UH, REQUESTED BORDER COMMERCIAL USES AND APPLYING THE FULL BUFFER WAS SIGNIFICANT LIMIT THE USABILITY OF THE PROPERTY. THERE WERE EIGHT NOTICES SENT OUT. ZERO ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION IN THE DEL CREST AREA. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. UM, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. OKAY. WHAT IS THE, UH, THE ZONINGS? I ONE? YES. WHERE'S THE MAP? OKAY. I ONE, I JUST WANT, I DIDN'T KNOW YOU CAN HAVE A RESTAURANT IN, IN A INDUSTRIAL, BUT MAYBE I'M CONFUSING IT WITH I TWO. NO, YOU, YOU CAN HAVE A FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT IN AN I ONE, JUST NOT IN I TWO. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. UM, LET THE RECORD SHOW THE COMMISSIONER. DEAN LEFT THE ROOM AT 4 47. HOW YOU DOING, SIR? DOING WELL. UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND, UH, TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS RAY LAKE. I AM, UH, WITH CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES. I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER THAT WILL BE PART OF THIS PROJECT. UM, I'M HERE TO REPRESENT PANDA EXPRESS AND THEIR DESIRE TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY AND TO, UH, BUILD A 2,600 SQUARE FOOT, UH, PANDA EXPRESS, UH, ON THIS SITE. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE LAYOUT, UM, IT'S A VERY NARROW LOT. UH, THE USES, UH, ABOVE IT IS, I GUESS, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S A NEW CHICK-FIL-A THAT'S GONNA BE GOING IN THERE. AND BELOW IT, THERE ARE TWO RESTAURANTS, UM, UH, BELOW IT AS WELL. UM, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S AN I ONE AND, UH, WITH THAT, THE, UH, BUDDING PROPERTY, ADJOINING PROPERTY IS A A C ONE OR I ONE, IT'S COMMERCIAL, UM, AS WELL AND WITH RESTAURANTS ON IT. SO WITH THAT BUFFER, THE USE, UH, THAT THEY HAVE ON IT ARE BASICALLY SIMILAR USES THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE DOING. AND WITH SIMILAR USES, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WOULD EVEN BE A, A BUFFER IF IT WERE SIMILAR ZONES. SORRY. UM, I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO PAUSE FOR A SECOND. STAFF IF THIS IS ON I ONE AND THE PROPERTY BELOW. IT'S I ONE, IT'S NOT I ONE. YEAH. TABLE, TABLE FIVE TEN ONE DOESN'T REQUIRE A BUFFER. WHAT, WHAT IS IT? WHERE, WHERE'S THIS COMING FROM? THE PORTION OF THE, UH, EXCUSE ME, THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. UM, [03:30:01] IT'S SPLIT ZONED I ONE AND C TWO. SO BECAUSE OF THE C TWO PORTION, THEY'RE REQUIRED A 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER. BUT THE, BUT THE, THE, UH, THE ATTACHMENTS PROVIDED IN THE FILE SHOW THAT THE C THAT THE I ONE EXTENDS ACROSS THE WHOLE FRONTAGE. I BELIEVE THAT MIGHT JUST BE A MISPRINT BECAUSE, UM, YEAH, THERE'S DIRECTLY C BELOW IT. THERE'S A C TWO PORTION. WELL, OKAY. UM, OKAY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE THE, THE LOT WHERE THE RESTAURANT, THE I ONE RESTAURANT SHOWS, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO THIS MAP THAT THEIR DRIVEWAY EXTENDS OUT TO FOUR 10, UNLESS THEY HAVE SOME SORT OF A JOINT AGREEMENT, BUT IT LOOKS, OH, WE CAN, WE CAN PULL UP A MAP THAT'LL KIND OF CLARIFY THAT. YEAH, PLEASE DO. BECAUSE I, UH, RICHARD, CAN YOU REMOVE THE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY? THANK YOU. OKAY. I SEE IT NOW. C SO THEN THE BUFFER DOESN'T HAVE TO EXTEND ACROSS THE WHOLE BOTTOM, THE BUFFER. IT'S NOT 3 25 FEET. THE BUFFER'S ONLY WE'RE A BUT A C TWO. THAT'S CORRECT, YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CONTINUE, SIR. I'M SORRY. NO, THAT I, I'M GLAD WE CLARIFIED THAT. UM, LET'S SEE. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE THAT STAFF MIGHT HAVE. OKAY. UH, LET'S SEE. IS THERE FIRST, IS THERE ONE TIME TO SPEAK ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS COMMISSIONER OF QUESTIONS. YOU'D LIKE TO START OFF BRAGMAN, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UM, SO ON THIS, ON THE LOT TO THE SOUTH, THE C TWO PORTION, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ALREADY A BUFFER ZONE THERE. DO YOU KNOW HOW RIGHT? WHY THAT IS? IT, IT'S SUBSTANTIAL ACTUALLY. UM, AND IN THE C TWO AREA, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY NOTICED AS WELL. UM, BUT I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW FAR IT IS. UH, IT'S GOTTA BE AT LEAST 20 FEET OR SO. OKAY. CRUZ TO MR. CRUZ. SO, SO DOES THAT BUFFER, IS THAT ADJACENT TO YOUR PROPERTY AND IT'S STILL PART OF THE OTHER IT BELONGS TO THE OTHER PROPERTY? IT DOES. OKAY. BUT NOT ONLY THIS, THAT BUFFER, WHICH IS REALLY GOOD ABOUT 20 FEET, THEN THEY HAVE A 24 FOOT WIDE DRIVE AISLE, AND THEN MORE BUFFER, MORE GREEN SPACE AS WELL. SO IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY FURTHER AWAY FROM THOSE BUILDINGS. AND I'M SORRY, WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL. IT'S FROM, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. OKAY. WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND HEAR THAT AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING, ANITA. L FRANKLIN 48 11 DEL, CORRECT. D E L L C R E S T DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 2 0. MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 2 3 2 7 4 8 4. UH, I AM THE DEL CREST AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. DANA PRESIDENT, THE CASE NUMBER IS BO, A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 5. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REQUEST FOR A 25 FOOT VARIANCE, UH, FOR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. AGAIN, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER FOR THE NEWLY, UM, PANDA RESTAURANT, UH, ON SIMILAR ROAD. THANK YOU. OKAY. BACK TO QUESTIONS. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION? HEARING NONE, UM, UNLESS SEE, SOMETHING YOU WANT TO. LAST, LAST THING IS, UM, WITH, WITH THIS AREA, IT'S CURRENTLY, IT USED TO BE A, AN OLD FUELING STATION. UM, AND IT'S LEFT THAT WAY CURRENTLY. UM, THIS WILL BE A BIG IMPROVEMENT AND I THINK THAT AS THAT LADY SAID, THEY WOULD REALLY LIKE SOME ORANGE CHICKEN IN THAT AREA. . SO JUST MY THOUGHT. OKAY. OKAY. WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, UH, LOOKING FOR A COMMISSIONER TO MAKE A MOTION. CRUZ MR. CRUZ, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 23 103 0 0 2 1 5. I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A 25 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FEET LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE, SITUATED AT 2215 SOUTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10, APPLICANT BEING CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT, THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN A NECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REDUCED BUFFER WILL LEAVE ENOUGH [03:35:01] ROOM BETWEEN PROPERTIES TO REDUCE NOISE, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THE APPLICANT CAN BILL ON THE PROPERTY. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE REDUCED LANDSCAPE BUFFER WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT AS THEY WILL LEAVE SPACE BETWEEN PROPERTIES FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT ALLOW, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED IN THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REDUCED LANDSCAPE BUFFER WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY. SAYS THE BUFFER VARIANCE IS BEAM SOUGHT AFTER OUR BOARD AND COMMERCIAL USES SIX PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS SUPPLY OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE REDUCED LANDSCAPE VARIANCES ARE SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY AND OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. YES, SIR. WELL, UM, THAT'S A NICE BIG AREA. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT AND OF COURSE RESTAURANTS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING, UH, BUFFER ON THE C TWO PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, INCLUDING THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL BUFFER, UM, NEXT TO THE DRIVEWAY. SO THE, I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE IN BETWEEN THE, THE PROPERTIES AND IT'LL BE A, A BIG IMPROVEMENT TO THE AREA. ALRIGHT, UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD? UH, HEARING NONE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR. MS. BENAVIDES I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA? I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ZERO. UM, CONGRATULATIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF. UM, I THINK WE'RE WAITING FOR FIVE O'CLOCK FOR ANOTHER COMMISSIONER TO ENTER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, WE CAN WE HAVE ANY MORE THAT ARE UP FOR APPROVAL? WE CAN SKIP TO NUMBER 11. YEAH, YEAH. LET'S SEE YOUR NUMBER 11. PLEASE BE LAST. THREE. UH, THE LAST THREE NUMBERS ARE 2 1 9 2 1 2 1 9. YOU, UM, BO O A 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 9. UM, LOCATED AT 7 6 0 EAST CUST STREET IN COUNCIL. DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, APPLICANT BEING, UH, RICHARD CONNOR. UH, REQUEST FOR A ONE, A DRIVEWAY, UH, DRIVEWAY VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO DRIVEWAYS WITHIN 50 FEET. AND TWO, A VARIANCE FOR THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE FRONT YARD TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER. CURRENT ZONING IS ID Z TWO. I WANNA WORK. HERE WE GO. UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON EAST LOCUST STREET, JUST WEST OF US, HIGHWAY 2 81. BETWEEN THE INTERSECTIONS OF NORTH ST. MARY STREET AND EAST EUCLID STREET. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE DRIVEWAY WITHIN 50 FEET ON ONE SEPARATE LOT AND IMPERVIOUS COVER TO ALLOW THE FRONT YARD TO EXCEED MAXIMUM 50% COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY. THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT AND DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE REQUIRES THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AND IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH WILL ENABLE EACH OCCUPANT TO ACCESS THEIR LIVING SPACE AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE DAY. UH, CURRENT PICTURE OF THE SITE PLAN WITH THE ONE AND TWOS LOCATED TOWARDS THE SOUTH OF THAT SITE PLAN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF, AS [03:40:01] YOU CAN SEE, WHERE THE DRIVEWAYS ARE BEING, ARE BEING REQUESTED AND SOME OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN BO O A 23, UM, 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 9 FOR THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AND A PREVIOUS COVER VARIANCE, UM, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS. UM, ONE THAT BASED ON THE DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LAW AND THE USE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AND ADDITIONAL PREVIOUS COVER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS DO NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THERE WERE 45 NOTICES SENT OUT. THERE WAS ZERO IN FAVOR. THERE WAS ONE IN OPPOSITION WITHIN 200 FEET. THERE WAS TWO OPPOSED OUTSIDE 200 FEET. AND, UH, TOPE HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND. AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE PUBLIC RESPONSES THAT WE GOT THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION. I'LL GO AHEAD AND LEAVE THAT UP THERE. I THINK THAT'S IT. AND, UM, DIANE, THAT, UH, THAT CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. CRUZ. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER CRUZ, WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, YES. BEFORE YOU GET OUT OF THE, ON THE NOTIFICATION PLAN, IT, YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THERE. SO DID THEY COME IN AFTER THIS WAS DONE, AFTER THE SLIDE WAS ACCOMPLISHED? 'CAUSE YOU ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TWO. UH, THERE WAS, YES. THEY CAME IN THIS MORNING AROUND LIKE EIGHT IN THE MORNING. YEAH. YEAH. AND THEY WENT OUTSIDE. THANK YOU. YEAH. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, LET'S, LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT THEN. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. ASHLEY FAIRMONT, KILLING GRIFFIN AND FAIRMONT 1 0 1 0 1 REUNION PLACE. UH, I'D ALSO LIKE TO INTRODUCE RICK CARDNER, RICK IN THE BACK HERE. HE'LL COME UP, UH, IS THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, AND WILL LIVE ON THE SITE. SO, UH, PERFECT. THANK YOU. I HAVE A, A BRIEF PRESENTATION FOR YOU ALL AND THEN HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. UH, SO AS, AS STAFF POINTED OUT, HERE'S THE PROPERTY AT 76 7 60 EAST LOCUST LASER POINTER. PERFECT. SO IT'S THIS ONE HERE. UH, THIS AERIAL IS, IS FROM GOOGLE. IT SHOWS IT'S STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION. UH, SO THE REQUEST, UH, IS FOR, WE, WE THOUGHT JUST TWO DRIVEWAYS, UH, FOR THE SECOND DRIVEWAY, BUT IT'S ALSO FOR THAT IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. UH, THIS IS, IS EAST LOCUST, AND I'LL SHOW YOU A, A ZOOMED OUT MAP IN JUST A MINUTE. UH, BUT IT, IT'S IN THE PEARL AREA AND IT, IT'S A PRETTY BUSY URBAN STREET. UH, THERE ARE CURRENT ZONING, IT'S I D Z ALLOWS FOR FOUR UNITS AND THREE ARE BEING, UH, CONSTRUCTED. SO AGAIN, YOU CAN, HERE'S THE, THE LARGER AREA. JUST TO ORIENT YOU. HERE'S HOTEL EMMA IN THE PEARL. UH, THIS IS THE SITE HERE ACROSS THE STREET FROM, UM, TOWNHOME CONDOS. UM, AND THEN LET ME JUMP TO THIS ONE. AND SO QUITE A BIT OF DEVELOPMENT IS OCCURRING IN THE AREA. SO AGAIN, HERE'S THE SITE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE, THE CONDOS. THIS IS AN, A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT THAT'S GOING IN. THIS IS THE NEW POLICE STATION. UH, HERE'S ANOTHER NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN MORE APARTMENTS, COMMERCIAL MIXED USE, UM, UP HERE. UH, SO THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL ZONING THAT WAS APPROVED. AND AGAIN, IT WAS JUST A, A A FOUR UNIT CONCEPT, ONE LARGE BUILDING. AND WHAT RICK IS PROPOSING TO DO, UM, IS TO HAVE THREE UNITS. AND SO THERE'LL BE TWO UNITS FRONTING ON LOCUST AND ONE IN THE BACK. UH, RICK WILL LIVE IN ONE OF THOSE UNITS. SO HERE'S THE SITE PLAN. IT'S A, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING TO SEE, BUT THIS IS, IS THE OVERALL SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY. UM, SO YOU HAVE ONE UNIT HERE WITH AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT'S THERE, UM, THEN ANOTHER UNIT IN THE BACK THAT WOULD BE ACCESSED BY THAT SAME DRIVEWAY. AND THEN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS THIS NEW DRIVEWAY HERE, UH, THAT WOULD ALLOW ACCESS TO THIS SAY THIRD UNIT. UM, SO THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 12 FOOT WIDE. WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED IN TERMS OF MATERIAL WAS CRUSHED GRANITE. UH, WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS, UM, PERVIOUS INITIALLY. UM, BUT BECAUSE CARS ARE DRIVEN BEING DRIVEN ON IT, THE INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN THAT IT WOULD BE MORE IMPERVIOUS TYPE MATERIAL. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE REQUESTING THAT VARIANCE. BUT WE THINK THAT THE, THE CRUSH GRANITE IS BETTER AESTHETICALLY, UM, THAN SOME OF THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES. SO THE OTHER THING TO POINT OUT IS, YOU'LL SEE HERE WE DID SOME CALCULATIONS. THE FRONT YARD IS REALLY SMALL. UH, MOST OF THESE UNITS ARE VERY CLOSE TO THE STREET, SO IT'S ONLY A TOTAL OF ABOUT A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. SO 38% OF THAT IS THE CONCRETE THAT'S THERE, THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. AND THEN THE CRUSH GRANITE IS 280 SQUARE FEET, SO A LITTLE LESS THAN 30%. AND THEN GRASS, UH, LANDSCAPING WOULD BE THE REMAINDER. AND THEN THIS ON THE RIGHT HERE IS JUST A ZOOMED IN EXHIBIT SO THAT YOU CAN SEE, UH, WHERE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY IS. HERE'S THE PORTION THAT GOES [03:45:01] TO THE BACK. UM, AND THEN THIS WOULD BE THE NEW DRIVEWAY, THE, THE CRUSHED GRANITE THAT WOULD GO TO THIS UNIT HERE. UH, THIS IS A, JUST A PICTURE OF THE, THE HOUSE FROM THE FRONT. UH, THE STAR IS KIND OF WHERE THAT SECOND DRIVEWAY WOULD BE LOCATED. UH, SO THIS IS EAST LOCUST STREET. UM, I DUNNO IF YOU'VE EVER DRIVEN DOWN IT, BUT IT'S VERY NARROW, VERY NARROW STREET. UM, THE TOWN HOMES ACROSS THE STREET HAVE GARAGES AND PARKING. UM, BUT JUST FROM MY EXPERIENCE AND SOME OTHER PROJECTS IN THIS AREA, THERE IS A LOT OF ON STREET PARKING. UH, AND SO THAT PARKING IS, YOU CAN PARK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET AS YOU SEE THE CARS HERE, BUT YOU CANNOT PARK ON THE SOUTH. UM, SO AGAIN, HERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE. I THINK THERE'S CARS ALWAYS THERE. UM, SO THE IDEA WITH A SECOND DRIVEWAY IS TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THOSE CARS TO GET OFF THE STREET. EVERYONE CAN PARK IN A DRIVEWAY. EVERYONE CAN GET INTO A GARAGE OR GET INTO THAT BACK UNIT. UM, BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY NOT AN OPTION FOR ON-STREET PARKING HERE. AND, AND THIS IS JUST GOING THROUGH ALL OF THE, THE REASONS FOR THE VARIANCE. BUT AGAIN, WE, WE FEEL LIKE IT'S, IT'S NOT AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE. UM, AGAIN, GETTING CARS OFF THE STREET AND WE THINK THAT THE, THE CRUSHED GRANITE IS A, A GOOD ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL FOR THAT DRIVEWAY. UM, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'LL STOP IN THE ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. I HAVE A CLARIFICATIONS FROM STAFF. SO CRUSH GRANITE DOESN'T COUNT FOR AS COMPARED TO GRAVEL AS THE U D C STATES AS A REDUCTION IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR THE DRIVEWAYS. IT DOES COUNT TOWARDS IT. UM, SOUNDS LIKE BECAUSE IT'S A PERUS PER PERVY YES. COVER. SO, SO, BUT, BUT SHE'S SAYING THAT THE APPLICANT'S SAYING THAT STAFF, UH, SOMEONE AT STAFF IS SAYING IT DOESN'T COUNT. WELL, WE, SO WE, WE LOOKED IN BECAUSE WE DIDN'T INITIALLY REQUEST THAT VARIANCE AND THAT WAS ADDED ON, UM, I THINK IT WAS ADDED ON AS MAYBE JUST THE, UH, IN CASE YOU SAFE, UM, THE INITIAL PLANS IS THIS PROJECT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE INITIAL PLANS DID SHOW CRUSH GRANITE AND THOSE WERE APPROVED. AND HAVE, HAVE YOU FILED FOR AN, UH, A MINOR OR A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE I D Z SITE PLAN? UH, WE DID NOT NEED ONE. YOU DON'T NEED ONE. IT'S THE OLD I D Z. UM, AND IT SHOWS A, SORRY, EXCUSE ME. I'M WE DID, IT WAS APPROVED. OH, THE MINOR. YEAH, WE DID, WE DID A ADMINISTRATIVE I TALKED TO SOMEONE. YEAH. 'CAUSE YOU'RE ID Z TWO THAT WOULD, THAT'S NOT THE WE FOR THE, UH, SITE PLAN, THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN, GUESS WE DID. YEAH. I'M SORRY THAT, THAT SOUNDS, THAT'S SO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU HAVE NOW. IN FACT, YOU'RE USING ONE LESS UNIT TOO. YES. SO DID, DID YOUR MINOR MODIFICATION REDUCE THE UNIT COUNT? OH, I'M SORRY. I MISSPOKE. IT WAS ID Z FOUR, BUT I WAS TOLD THAT THE SITE PLAN ITSELF OF THE PERSON I BOUGHT FOR, I HAD TO MAKE SURE IT WAS YEAH, THE, IN 2019 IT WAS ZONE IDZ TWO PERMITTED UP TO FOUR UNITS. RIGHT. BUT BECAUSE IT'S POST 2018, DOESN'T THE NEW SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS REQUIRE YOU TO SHOW DRIVEWAYS AND LANDSCAPING AND FENCES AND, AND WHERE THE BUILDING IS? I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMED LIKE, I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY, UM, THIS DIDN'T HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH AND GET REAPPROVED. I'LL, I'LL LET CHRISTIE YOUR STAFF ANSWER THAT. BUT WITH THE IDZ TWO, I THINK YOU'RE THINKING MAYBE THE IDZ ONE STANDARDS, THOSE ARE MUCH STRICTER THAN THE IDZ TWO. WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT TOO. YEAH. JUST SHOWED A BIG BOX . YEAH, IT JUST SHOWS THAT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THEY USED TO DO PRE 2018. THEY NOWADAYS THEY WANT MORE, MORE, MORE SPECIFIC, UH, STAFF. DOES THIS REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE I D Z PLAN NOW THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR TWO DRIVEWAYS IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LAYOUT? I WAS LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE WAS A, I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENTS ON LOCUS. I'M ONLY ASKING, SO IT WOULD MAKE ME, MAKES ME FEEL BETTER IF, IF STAFF REVIEWED A NEW APPLICATION FOR, YOU KNOW, COMPLIANCE AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. WE DID. THEY GOT A MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT ON JUNE 24TH, 2021. SOUNDS FANTASTIC. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOPE, NONE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. SO THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY WE NEED TO LISTEN TO OR ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK? UM, YES, WE DO HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL TO PLAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HEAR IT. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JONATHAN CARD. I LIVE AT 7 6 4 EAST LOCUST. MY PHONE NUMBER IS TWO TEN EIGHT SIX ZERO EIGHT ONE ONE ONE. I AM CALLING REFERRING CASE BOA 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 9. I'M WRITING TO, UM, EXCUSE ME, I'M CALLING TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AT SEVEN 60 EAST LOCUST. [03:50:03] UM, I THINK THE PROPOSED DESIGN FOR THE LANDSCAPE AND THE HARD SET AND THE HARDSCAPE WITHIN THE SETBACK OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE A BAD PRECEDENT FOR TOBIN HILL. THE VARIANCE IMPACTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT JUST LOCUST STREET AS DESIGNED, THE PEDESTRIAN WOULD HAVE TO CROSS THREE DRIVEWAYS TO CROSS THIS 50 FOOT WIDE PROPERTY. THEY ALREADY CURRENTLY HAVE TO CROSS TWO DIFFERENT DRIVEWAYS. A TYPICAL 50 FOOT LOT IS ALLOWED ONE DRIVE, TYPICALLY 12 TO 18 FEET WIDE. AND THE OWNER HAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED A 19 FOOT WOOD, DR WIDE DRIVEWAY. AND WITH THE PROPOSED DESIGN THAT WOULD CREATE TWO DRIVES, IT WOULD, UM, PAVE 31 FEET OF THE 50 FOOT WIDE LOT. THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED BY, UH, RIGHT OR BY CODE IS 50%. AND THE DESIGN, UH, THAT'S BEING PROPOSED REQUESTS APPROXIMATELY 64% IMPERVIOUS COVER. IN ADDITION, THE DESIGN SHOWS TWO TREES THAT I BELIEVE ARE PROBABLY REQUIRED, UM, TO CLOSE OUT THE PERMIT. AND THE CURRENT DESIGN DOESN'T LEAVE ROOM FOR THOSE TREES TO BE PLANTED OR TO DO WELL. UM, THIS VARIANCE IMPACTS THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT JUST THE 700 BLOCK OF LOCUS OF LOCUST STREET. SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO, UM, TO NOT PASS THE VARIANCE. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THIS ENTIRE PROPERTY REDEVELOPMENT FROM THE REZONING, UM, TO THE HEIGHT NOW TO THE PAVING OF THE SITE HAS BEEN, UH, DONE STEP BY STEP METHODICALLY, UM, ASKING FOR MULTIPLE VARIANCES AND REZONING TO BUILD THE PROPERTY. IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORS, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORS. BUT, UH, THANK YOU. OKAY. IF THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME BACK UP. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR, THE, THE, THE DRIVEWAY ON THE SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS A LARGE NUMBER ONE ON IT. UM, THAT, THAT IS THE NEW DRIVEWAY THAT'S BEING PROPOSED. THE NUMBER, THE ONE WITH NUMBER, THE ONE YEAR, THE NUMBER TWO IS AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY, IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT HAS BEEN. OKAY. AND SO THERE WAS CONCERN FROM THE, THE CALLER THAT IT, THAT IT WAS A LOT OF DRIVEWAYS ON YOUR FRONTAGE. CAN THAT BE REDUCED IN WIDTH? ANY? I DON'T KNOW. AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT GETS WIDER WHEN IT LEAVES THE GARAGE AND COMES OUT TO THE STREET. WELL, UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. YEAH. LIKE HOW WIDE IS IT NOW? THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE'S NOT MUCH DEPTH. SO IN ORDER TO GET A CAR TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO CURVE AND GET INTO THAT ONE CAR GARAGE, YOU NEED AS MUCH WIDTH AS POSSIBLE. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. AND IT CURVES BECAUSE OF UTILITY. RIGHT? THERE'S UTILITY BOX, RIGHT, THE CORNER. THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WE'RE GONNA TRY TO RESOLVE, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT RESOLVED TO SOME YES. AND BEING IMPERVIOUS, I MEAN, ONCE YOU RESOLVE IT, THERE'D BE A POTENTIAL WHERE THAT TAKE THE BEND OUT OF IT, RIGHT? AND CORRECT. YEAH. MY, WHAT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS, I, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CALLER WAS SAYING ABOUT JUST THE MASS AMOUNT OF DRIVEWAY WITH, UM, AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS, LIKE RIGHT NOW, WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF IT AS PROPOSED? A LITTLE BLURRY ON THERE'S LIKE, IS THAT 15, 18 FEET IN ORDER? IF WE DON'T HAVE THE DRIVE, WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS THE WHOLE FRONT IS GONNA BE, WELL, I'M JUST WONDERING IF, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO, TO ALLOW A SECOND DRIVEWAY BUT PUT A WIDTH REQUIREMENT ON IT LIKE A, BECAUSE I KNOW A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY CAN BE AS SMALL AS 10 FEET, BUT UP TO 20, CAN'T WE, CAN'T WE SAY A SECOND DRIVEWAY NOT TO EXCEED 14 FEET OR SOMETHING? 14? YEAH, I WOULD HATE TO DO THAT AND THEN FIND OUT THAT THERE'S SOME OTHER REQUIREMENT. I MEAN, IT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT THE EXPERT AT TRAFFIC AND SO THEY MAY SAY, NO, THAT'S TOO NARROW. OR, WELL, THE RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY CODE IS 10 TO 20, SO, RIGHT. I, I THINK THE CONCERN IS THE, WITH THE CARS PARKED IN THE STREET, THE TURNING INTO THAT DRIVEWAY TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM TO TURN. BUT I THINK 14 FEET IS OR LESS IS FINE. RIGHT. AND THERE WILL, THERE WILL BE, UM, CARS PARKED ACROSS THE STREET, SO THERE WON'T BE A WHOLE LOT OF ROOM FOR TURNING. 'CAUSE IT'S A NARROW STREET. YEAH, I KNOW. OKAY. I THINK, AND CAN YOU PULL UP MY PRESENTATION BECAUSE I, I THINK THE CONCERN IS IF IF THERE'S NOT A SECOND DRIVEWAY, THEN THE, THAT UNIT WOULD BE ACCESSED FROM SO ON. THERE'D BE A LOT OF CRUSHED GRAN AND STAFF ON THE MINOR AMENDMENT. DID THEY GO DOWN TO THREE UNITS OR THEY KEPT IT AT FOUR. THREE. OKAY. SO THERE IS A RE SO WE ALREADY HAVE A REDUCTION IN WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. UM, SO I'M PUTTING THAT OUT THERE AS WELL. OKAY. SO I'M, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MINCHA? COMMISSIONER MINCHA JUST DRAWN IN, THEY WERE NOT AWARE, UH, THE TREE THAT WAS IN THE FRONT WHEN YES. AND I'M LOOKING AT GOOGLE HERE ON JANUARY, 2021. MM-HMM. , WHAT WAS THE GIRTH ON THAT TREE IN THE FRONT? THAT CHINESE TELL, I KNOW IT WAS TERRIBLE. WE HATED TO TAKE IT DOWN. IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE FREEZE. IT WAS MORE THAN HALF DEAD. I'M [03:55:01] PRETTY SURE MY BUILDER HAD THE CITY ARBORIST COME OUT AND APPROVE IT. IT'S ON CITY PROPERTY, SO WE COULDN'T HAVE TAKEN IT DOWN OUR WITHOUT PERMISSION. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER AMEZ HAS JOINED THE MEETING? YEAH. IS HE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, SIR? OKAY. UM, WITH THAT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION UNA COMMISSIONER ZUNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 23 DASH 0 3 2 9. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR ONE, A DRIVEWAY VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO DRIVEWAYS WITHIN 50 FOOT WITH THE DRIVEWAY THAT IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED LIMITED TO 14 FEET AND TWO, A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 50 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE FRONT YARD TO EXCEED THE MA MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER. ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED TESTIMONY THAT THEY INTEND TO USE, UH, DECOMPOSED OR CRUSHED GRANITE AS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER HERE, UH, WE STILL ARE CONSIDERING THAT IMPERVIOUS, ALTHOUGH THERE'S DEBATE, IT COULD BE IMPERVIOUS COVER SITUATED AT SEVEN 60 EAST LOCUST STREET, APPLICANT BEING, UH, KILLING GRIFFIN FERMENT AT P L C. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C HAS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY WITHIN 50 FEET, 50 FEET OF ANOTHER DRIVEWAY, AND TO ALLOW THE FRONT YARD TO EXCEED 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR THE FRONT YARD. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN ONLY HAVING ONE DRIVEWAY ON AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT THAT ALLOWS FOR FOUR DWELLING UNITS BASED ON THE DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT AND ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS REQUIRED, THUS ADDING ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPUR OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE COBRA THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. BASED ON THE DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT, ONLY ONE DRIVEWAY CAN BE ALLOWED IN A LOT THAT IS UNDER 50 FOOT FRONTAGE AND ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY IS BEING REQUESTED FOR THE STRUCTURE OF THE USE FOR THE STRUCTURE FOR THE USE. ADDITIONALLY, DUE TO THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WILL EXCEED 50%. THE REQUEST APPEARS TO OBSERVE THE SPREAD OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THE VARIANCE VIA SUCH VARIANCE, WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED STAFF DOES NOT FIND EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY BEING REQUESTED FOR THE STRUCTURE IS FOR THE USE. ADDITIONALLY, DUE TO THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WILL EXCEED 50%. THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AND IMPERVIOUS COVER ARE BASED ON THE DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE OF SAW IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE OF SALT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, BASED ON THE DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT, THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AND, AND INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUESTS DO NOT APPEAR MERELY FINANCIAL AND A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER ZUNA? UH, I HAVE A QUESTION. OH YES. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY 1514 FOOT WIDE? I, OH, I DID SAY 14 FOOT WIDE WHEN I OH YEAH, NO, WELL, WELL, SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION IS 14 FEET WIDE. 14 FOOT WIDE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO THANK YOU FOR OKAY. POINT OF CLARIFICATION. SO, UH, SO LISTEN TO SOME OF THE OPPOSITION HERE, UH, THAT WE HEARD ON THE TESTIMONY. SO WE'RE REDUCING THE, UH, THE FOOT, THE, THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY. UM, ALSO THE DECOMPOSED GRANITE OF THE GRANITE IS A IMP IS IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, WHICH THE APPLICANT WILL BE USING. SO ALTHOUGH WE'VE READ THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, THAT MO MOST LIKELY WILL NOT BE NEEDED FOR THE PROJECT. ALSO, THE, UH, BY RIGHT, HE COULD HAVE BUILT FOUR UNITS HERE. HE'S, UH, LOCKED INTO THE THREE UNITS PER THE SITE, THE SITE PLAN. AND SO THAT REDUCES THE DENSITIES ON THE PROJECT. SO I THINK IT'S A WIN-WIN, UH, OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR HIM TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT THIRD UNIT. REDUCES THE, UH, UH, THE, THE DENSITY AND USING THE IMPERVIOUS, UH, UH, THE PERVIOUS MATERIAL. UH, I THINK, UH, UH, ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES THE ISSUES HERE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS WELL. THE, UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. THUMBS UP. OKAY, MR. MANCHACA? I CONCUR. MR. DEAN, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA I CONCUR. MS. BENAVIDEZ I CONCUR. [04:00:01] MR. VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I ALSO CONCUR. A MOTION PASSES 10 TO ONE. UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF AND, UH, WE'LL THEY BE TAKING A BREAK. EVERYONE WILL BE BACK AT 5 28. THANK YOU MR. MANNA. CAN WE TEST YOUR AUDIO? 5 31. I'M CALLING YOU BACK INTO SESSION. WE'RE GONNA SKIP TO ITEM NUMBER 12. ITEM NUMBER 12, CASE ENDING IN TWO 20. GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER 12, BEING BO O A DASH 23 1 0 3 0 2 20. LOCATED AT SIX 17 EAST EUCLID AVENUE, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT BEING JULIAN RKI. A REQUEST FOR A HALF VARI HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ALLOW A BUILDING WITH THREE STORIES CURRENTLY ZONED I D Z TWO WITH USES, OH, UH, CASE SUMMARY. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG EAST EUCLID AVENUE BETWEEN ATLANTA AVENUE AND ERIE AVENUE. UPON REVIEW FOR FINAL INSPECTIONS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR AN ALREADY BUILT STRUCTURE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF TWO AND A HALF STORIES AS ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 35 DASH FIVE 17. BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ANY PORTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED WITHIN 50 LINEAR FEET OF THE PROPERTY. LINE OF AN ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, UH, PROPERTY ZONED I D Z TWO, WHICH DOES PERMIT A HEIGHT UP TO 40 FEET. HOWEVER, SINCE ABUTTING THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AT SIX 15 EAST EUCLID IS CAPPED AT 35 FEET. THE CLOSEST EXTERIOR WALL OF THE STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY 11 FEET FROM THE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN ELEVATION AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THREE STORIES ADJACENT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY USE SURROUNDING AREA. YEAH, SO STAFF'S RECOMME RECOMMENDATION AND THE HEIGHT VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL N BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 20 20. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND THE FACTS, ONE STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES AS THE TOWERING STRUCTURE WILL NOT IMPOSE ONTO THE INTEREST OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE. AND TWO, A THREE STORY STRUCTURE IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. HER NOTIFICATION PLAN, 30 NOTICES WERE MAILED. ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RESPONSE. THAT CONCLUDES, UH, STAFF'S PRESENTATION. BUT HOLD ON. SO THIS, THIS BUILDING WAS, UH, ALREADY CONSTRUCTED? YES. AND IN 2019 WHEN THE, WHEN IT WAS SENT TO I D Z TWO, WHAT HEIGHT WAS ON THE I D Z SITE PLAN? I'LL HAVE TO PULL THAT SITE PLAN. JUST TO VERIFY, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SOMETHING AT THREE STORIES KNOWING THAT THERE'S, WELL, IDZ TWO DOES ALLOW UP TO THE 40 FEET, BUT, UM, I MEAN, SHOULDN'T, SHOULDN'T STAFF BE LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT IT, WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH CORRECT. AND SO, SO IT GOT MISSED, BUT THEN IT GOT SEEN AT INSPECTION, SO, UH, BECAUSE IT GOT MISSED, THEY NEED THE VARIANCE FOR THE EXTRA HALF STORY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. SO, UH, LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT THEN. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, THREE 10 SOUTH ST. MARY'S, SUITE 2,700. YEAH. SO WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS THE ROTOWSKI WHO ARE HERE WITH ME, THEY, UH, SUBMITTED FOR A ZONING APPLICATION. THEY GOT THE I D Z TWO WITH THE SITE PLAN, WITH THREE STORIES, WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE TOBIN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THEY GO AND THEY SUBMIT THEIR BUILDING PLANS. IN THE MEANTIME, THE CITY CHANGED THE U D C TO HAVE THE TWO AND A HALF STORY LIMITATION THAT WAS ADOPTED. YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT HERE TODAY. IT WAS ADOPTED IN JANUARY OF, OF THIS YEAR. UM, WELL, SO THEY SUSPENDED THEIR PLANS FOR THREE STORIES. THE PLANS GOT APPROVED. NOBODY CAUGHT IT AT THE CITY LEVEL, OR, AND THEY DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, UNLESS YOU'RE A U D C NERD LIKE ME AND YOU'RE NOT WATCHING THE U D C, THE ARCHITECT DIDN'T CATCH IT EITHER. SO THE PLANS WERE SUBMITTED, THE BUILDING GOT BUILT, THEY'RE ALMOST READY TO MOVE IN THE, THE BUILDING INSPECTORS COME OUT AND FIND THAT IT SHOULD ONLY BE TWO AND A HALF STORIES. AND I MEAN, [04:05:01] THE STRUCTURE'S THERE. SO THEY'VE BEEN BESIDE THEMSELVES. WHAT DO WE DO NOW? DO WE HAVE TO CUT OUT A HALF STORY THAT'S GONNA, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE RAINWATER PROTECTION, ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THE STRUCTURE. SO THEY HIRED ME, SUBMITTED THE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION WORKING WITH STAFF. WE FIGURED THAT WAS THE BEST WAY TO GET THEM WHERE THEY NEED TO BE. THE PLAN FOR THE HOUSE, THAT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE FROM THESE ELEVATIONS IS THE GROUND FLOOR IS AN OFFICE THAT WAS PART OF THE ZONING. AND THE SECOND FLOOR IS ONE APARTMENT AND THE THIRD FLOOR IS ANOTHER APARTMENT. UM, JULIAN ROTOWSKI AND HIS WIFE ARE GONNA LIVE ON THE THIRD FLOOR. THEIR PARENTS ARE GONNA LIVE ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND THEY'RE GONNA USE THE FIRST FLOOR AS AN OFFICE. SO WHEN WE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION, WE REACHED BACK OUT TO TOBIN HILL AGAIN. THEY SUBMITTED THEIR SUPPORT LETTER. I DO HAVE SUPPORT LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS ON EACH SIDE. I SUBMITTED THOSE TO THE CITY. I DON'T KNOW WHY THOSE DIDN'T GET GET POSTED, BUT WE DID REACH OUT TO BOTH OWNERS ON EACH SIDE. SO WE WOULD DEFINITELY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT. OVS CASE WILL BE IN A REALLY TOUGH SPOT IF THEY CAN'T GET THIS VARIANCE. 'CAUSE LIKE I SAID, THE, THE STRUCTURE'S ALREADY THERE, SO THANK YOU. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. YEAH. SO YOU APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT BEFORE THE CODE CHANGED? AFTER THE CODE, AFTER THE CODE CHANGED. AND THE, THE I D Z SITE PLAN, BECAUSE THERE'S A SITE PLAN COMPONENT, IT DOESN'T COUNT AS A PERMIT THAT YOU CAN USE FOR VESTED RIGHTS APPLICATION OR ANYTHING. YOU KNOW, THE CITY HAS THE CITY, I DON'T WANNA TALK ABOUT CITY ATTORNEYS. , THEY'VE TAKEN A POSITION THAT ZONING DOESN'T REALLY GRANT YOU VESTED RIGHTS EVEN WITH THE SITE PLAN, EVEN WITH A SITE PLAN. OKAY. AND SO, LIKE I SAID, I TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT THIS AND WE DECIDED THE BEST WAY, THE EASIEST WAY, NOT, NOT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS EASY, BUT LET'S SEE IF WE CAN TRY TO GET A VARIANCE AND, AND SEE WHERE WE GO FROM THERE. OKAY. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE SITE PLAN, UH, EVEN BACK WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED THEN DOES NOT INDICATE THREE STORIES. SO EITHER WAY, I MEAN, I THINK THAT WAS THE PLAN. IT WAS, UH, GIVEN AT THE TIME, YOU KNOW, I, THE NEW I DZS WENT IN AT THAT TIME ALSO, ID Z ONE, IDZ TWO, IDZ THREE, AND SO THEY ALL HAVE THEIR OWN HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. AND, UM, IT WASN'T UNTIL MORE RECENT WHERE THOSE HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED ON, ON SITE PLANS. THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I, I KNOW MORE. I WHEN YEAH, I KNOW THAT MORE RECENTLY. THEY'RE EXTREMELY SPECIFIC. YES. OKAY. UH, WELL, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? NOBODY, WE JUST SEE THE, UH, THE APPROVALS. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, THE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, UH, APPROVALS THAT YOU COULD SHOW FOR THE PATRICK TO JOSEPH? WHERE DID YOU SEND THOSE TO JOSEPH? OH. UH, CAN YOU SEND 'EM TO US? WE CAN MAYBE PROJECT 'EM IF YOU I CAN'T GET ON MY COMPUTER. OH, OKAY. , WE'VE GOT 'EM. WE'LL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UH, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY VOICEMAILS? UH, NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT. UH, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE. THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS AND, ALL RIGHT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION WHO'D LIKE TO READ. COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 20 20. I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR A HALF STORY VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ALLOW A BUILDING WITH THREE STORIES SITUATED AT 6 1 7 EAST EUCLID AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING JULIAN ROGOWSKI. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF REVISIONS, THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIOUS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE HEALTH, GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. FOR THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS REPRESENTED BY HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF VIEW. FOR THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO DEVIATE FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES PERMITTED IF ADJACENT TO A RE, TO RESIDENTIAL USES TO ALLOW STRUCTURE TO BE THREE STORIES TALL. STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES, AS THE TOWERING STRUCTURE WILL NOT IMPOSE ONTO THE INTEREST OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, AND IT'S LOCATED AT THE EDGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT BUILDING THE STRUCTURE 35 FEET OR TWO AND A HALF STORIES IN HEIGHT. THIS WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE PROPOSED USE, INTENDED LIVING SPACE WOULD BE DRAMATICALLY REDUCED AND ALTERATIONS WOULD NEED TO BE MADE. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. STAFF FINDS THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JU JUSTICE WILL BE DONE AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF ZONE I D Z TWO AND HAS THE ALLOWANCE UP TO FOUR STORIES. THE REQUEST DOES NOT SEEM TO BE OUTTA CHARACTER WITH THE ASSIGNED BASED ZONING. DISTRICT FOUR VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE. SUCH VARIS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL [04:10:01] CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTERED THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT UPON SITE VISITS. STAFF OBSERVED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING LOCATED NEAR A HIGH VOLUME INTERSECTION. THIS INTERSECTION IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE FOR THIS COMMUNITY WHERE OTHER THREE STORY STRUCTURES WERE OBSERVED, THUS NOT BEING OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE SURROUNDING LAND USES. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED, BUT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH VARIANCE OF SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE APPLICANT NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE, FOR THE PROPOSED USE. CIRCUM, THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERELY FINANCIAL. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNI. COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN, UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. UH, THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WAS IN FAVOR IT, UM, AND IT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE HARDSHIP TO TRY AND REDUCE THAT BUILDING, UH, BY A HALF STORY. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER ZUNA? YEAH, I CONCUR. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM THE MOST AFFECTED, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PROJECT. SO WE WITH, UH, THAT SUPPORT, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD HEARING? NOW? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN. I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. DEAN. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA I CONCUR. MS. BENAVIDES I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ. I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES. UM, UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS. UM, ITEM NUMBER 10. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER 10, UH, BO O A DASH 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 8. LOCATED AT EIGHT 15 SOUTH PINE STREET CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO, APPLICANT BEING PICTURE CHRISTENSEN PC REQUESTS FOR A ONE A ONE FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT FIVE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY. LINE TWO. A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THESE THREE SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON A RM FOUR LOT THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. THREE. A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER. AND FOUR A HALF STORY VARIANCE FOR THE MAXIMUM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO ALLOW THE BUILDING WITH, WITH THREE STORIES CURRENTLY ZONED RMM FOUR CASE SUMMARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG SOUTH PINE STREET, SOUTH OF VIRGINIA BOULEVARD. THE LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT WITH THE APPLICANT ANTICIPATING ON CONSTRUCTION A TOTAL OF THREE DWELLING UNITS WITHOUT SHARED WALLS. THE LOT IS CURRENTLY 5,610 SQUARE FEET WITH THE UNITS FACING SOUTH PINE STREET. THE ORIENTATION AND SIZE RESULTED IN THE APPLICANT RE REQUESTING A ONE FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT FIVE INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TO ACCOMMODATE THE UNITS NOT HAVING SHARED WALLS. UPON REVIEW BY STAFF, IT WAS NOTED THAT, THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL VARIANCES WHILE THREE DWELLING UNITS ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE R FOUR. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THESE THREE SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON A, ON AN R LOT THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. THE THIRD VARIANCE REQUESTED IS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER. EACH UNIT HAS A TWO CAR DRIVEWAY TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT OF ONE, ONE AND A HALF PER UNIT. THE LAST VARIANCE REQUESTED IS FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ANY PORTION OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE OR MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED WITHIN 50 LINEAR FEET OF THE PROPERTY. LINE OF AN ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THREE STORIES. HERE'S THE SITE PLAN WITH THOSE FOUR VARIANCES, SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SITE SETBACK VARIANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL N B O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 2 18 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND FACTS. OH, STAFF FINDS THAT THE DISTANCE IS SUITABLE AS IT WILL NOT IMPOSE ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR BY BEING TOO CLOSE TO THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE. WATER RUNOFF WILL NOT IMPOSE AND RISK OF FIRE SPREAD IS MITIGATED. [04:15:03] STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THREE SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON AN ARM FOR A LOT THAT IS LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE. IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE HALF STORY VARIANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO O A DASH 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINES AND FACTS. ONE. MAINTAINING DENSITY OF THREE UNITS CONTAINED IN A SINGLE STRUCTURE CAN PREVENT OVERCROWDING ON SMALLER LOTS, PROVIDES OPEN SPACES AND CONTRIBUTES TO A MORE COMFORTABLE AND AESTHETICALLY PLEASING ENVIRONMENT IN AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED SINGLE STRUCTURED NEIGHBORHOOD. TWO. THE EXCEEDING OF 50% MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER WILL BE CONTRARY AS IT WILL ALTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE COMMUNITY AND DOES NOT ALLOW FOR WATER PENETRATION INTO THE GROUND. THREE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS ARE ENFORCED FOR THE PROTECTION OF VIEW OF ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES. IT'S OUR NOTIFICATION PLAN. 46 NOTICE SENT ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. NO RESPONSE FROM DENVER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THAT CONCLUDES, UH, STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT ? JUST STATE YOUR NAME, TELL US ABOUT YOUR CASE. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, THREE 10 SOUTH ST. MARY SUITE 2,700. LEMME START OFF BY SAYING THE, UH, 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER FRONT YARD. WE'RE WIPING THAT OUT. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THAT. WE CAN DO THE DRIVEWAY STRIPS AND, AND NOT HAVE TO TO DEAL WITH THAT. UM, NOW ON THE OTHER THREE VARIANCES, UH, THE REASON WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE THREE SEPARATE STRUCTURES, UH, THE DEVELOPER ON THIS ONE HAS DONE CONDO UNITS BEFORE, SO WE'RE TRYING TO DO THREE INDIVIDUAL UNITS. WE'LL DO A CONDO ASSOCIATION. PEOPLE ALWAYS THINK THOSE ARE VERY BURDENSOME FOR SMALL PROJECTS LIKE THIS, BUT IN THEIR OPINION, THEY'VE ALREADY DONE IT. THEY KNOW HOW TO DO IT. THIS IS FILLING IN THE BLANKS ON THE PAPERWORK. SO THEY WANNA DO A CONDO ASSOCIATION. SO THEY WANTED THE THREE SEPARATE STRUCTURES TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE PRIVACY BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GONNA OWN THESE. YOU KNOW, I THINK WHEN THE CITY ADOPTED THE R FOUR REQUIREMENT THAT THE STRUCTURES BE WITHIN ONE UNIT, THEY'RE KIND OF THINKING OF YOUR STANDARD FOURPLEX TWO DOWN, TWO ABOVE SORT OF RENTAL UNITS. BUT IF YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY SELL THE UNITS, YOU KNOW, OWNERS PREFER TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF PRIVACY AND THEY LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE BETWEEN THEIR UNITS. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT ONE. UM, ON THE DISTANCE VARIANCE THE STAFF IS SUPPORTING, UM, TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY, THAT WOULD BE ON THE RIGHT ON THIS, ON THIS EXHIBIT. IT'S A, IT'S AN OLDER CHURCH THAT'S BEEN THERE FOREVER. THEY'VE GOT SORT OF A FIELD BEHIND THE CHURCH. I THINK THAT'S WHY STAFF STRUCTURING APPROVAL WE'RE NOT OVERCROWDING INTO ANY OTHER EXISTING STRUCTURES. I DON'T THINK THE CHURCH WILL EVER GO AWAY. UM, AND THEN ON THE HALF STORY, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM OUR SIDE PLAN, THEY WERE KIND OF PLANNING ON DOING THE PARKING ON THE FIRST FLOOR, LIVING ROOM KITCHEN ON SECOND AND TWO, TWO BEDROOMS ON THE THIRD FLOOR. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF THREE STORE UNITS IN THE AREA. UM, SO HE THOUGHT HOPEFULLY IT WAS, WOULD NOT BE TOO, TOO BURDENSOME. I DID REACH OUT TO AUBREY LEWIS AT DENVER HEIGHTS, BUT I, HE RESPONDED BACK TO ME THAT HE WOULD GET, GET ME, YOU KNOW, WITH HIS BOARD AND GET BACK TO ME. BUT I NEVER GOT A, A FINAL RESPONSE FROM HIM. BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. OKAY. IS THERE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I GUESS, UM, YOU KNOW, ON GOOGLE DRIVE, THERE'S A HOME RIGHT BEHIND IT AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEIR ENTIRE VIEW WOULD BE THE BACK OF THAT BUILDING OR, OR THE, I GUESS THE BACKSIDE OF THE NEW STRUCTURE. UM, SO I DO QUESTION THAT. AND THEN THE SECOND THING, I GUESS I DID A GOOGLE DRIVE AS WELL AROUND, AND I DID NOT REALLY SEE ANY THREE STORY STRUCTURES. UM, SO, SO I GUESS YOU HAD SOME ADDRESSES OF SOME OF THOSE STRUCTURES, SO I CAN KIND OF VERIFY. I SEE TWO AND A HALF STORY STRUCTURES, BUT I DON'T SEE THREE, I GUESS. WELL, IN, IN DRIVING AROUND I SAW A FEW. I DID NOT TAKE DOWN THOSE ADDRESSES. I APOLOGIZE, COMMISSIONER. OKAY. UM, AND THEN, OKAY, THAT'S IT FOR RIGHT NOW. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY BEFORE WE, UH, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY, ANY VOICEMAILS? YES, WE DO HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL. ALL RIGHT, LET'S HEAR IT. HI, UH, THIS IS RICHARD FREDERICK, UH, 8 0 3 SOUTH PINE. IT'S MY ADDRESS. I'M RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE NUMBER IS TWO THREE DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 8. UM, I AM, UH, NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS CONSTRUCTION. IT IS, UH, TAKES UP SO MUCH OF THE PROPERTY THAT IT DOESN'T GIVE AMPLE, UM, ROOM FOR ABSORPTION OF RAIN, WATER OR RUNOFF. ALSO, THE PROXIMITY TO [04:20:01] THE FENCE LINE, UM, IS PART OF THAT CONCERN. WHAT IS THE ROOF PITCH AND WHERE IS THIS WATER GOING? UM, FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, IT WOULD BE GOING DIRECTLY ONTO MY PROPERTY, WHICH ALREADY HAS, UH, DRAINAGE ISSUES WHEN IT RAINS. THIS, UH, CORNER, UH, OF VIRGINIA AND PINE HISTORICALLY HAS ISSUES WITH RAINWATER DRAINAGE. UH, IT HAS BEEN IMPROVED, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN ELIMINATED. AND, UM, THIS STRUCTURE WILL NOT HELP THAT. UM, IF THEY NEED THE SPACE, MAKE IT A TOWN HOME, PULL IT TIGHTER TOGETHER. BUT, UM, DON'T, DON'T GO THREE AND A HALF FEET FROM, UH, THE FENCE LINE AND, UH, HAVE THE RUNOFF GO INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARDS, WHICH WILL BE CAUSING PROBLEMS. UM, I CAN'T SEE ANY OTHER WAY AROUND IT. UM, THE HEIGHT IS, YOU KNOW, NOT GREAT EITHER, BUT, UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S A CITY ISSUE OF CREATING DENSE, UH, DEVELOPMENT. UM, BUT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF OF THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE WATER DRAINAGE. THERE'S NO PLACE TO GO. THERE'S NO PROVISIONS OR PROTECTIONS HERE. UH, THANK YOU. UH, MY PHONE NUMBER IS (773) 983-1965. AGAIN, I'M RICHARD FREDERICK AND I HAVE THE PROPERTY 8 0 3 SOUTH PINE MANNA COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK THAT I HEARD THE APPLICANT STATE WAS THAT, UH, HE DID DO A REACH OUT TO THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BUT, BUT WASN'T ABLE TO FINISH THAT CONNECTION. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK PERSONALLY, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THEIR RESPONSE, YOU KNOW, TO THIS, UM, UH, REALLY ON PROBABLY ALL THREE MATTERS. BUT, BUT I'D LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, UH, HAVE THEM WEIGH IN ON IT. UH, CERTAINLY 'CAUSE THAT WOULD INFLUENCE MY DECISION. MENCHACA COMMISSIONER MENCHACA, ALSO, I'D LIKE TO SEE A RENDERING ON THIS TO SEE THE, THE AMOUNT OF WATERSHED THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A GABLE THAT THE GABLE GOES TOWARD SLOPE TOWARD THE BACK, TOWARD THE PROPERTY AT THE WOODEN FENCE. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. WELL, COMMISSIONER, WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE SO I CAN KEEP TRYING TO WORK ON DENVER HEIGHTS? OR WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO DO? I, I MEAN, I, I'M LOOKING, LOOKING AT, UH, WHAT, AND I CAN COME BACK WITH ELEVATIONS IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL. YEAH, THAT SOUNDS, THAT SOUNDS THAT'D BE GREAT. WHAT, WHAT, UH, STAFF ONE'S THE NEXT AVAILABLE SEPTEMBER 11TH. OH, THAT'S QUICK. ALRIGHT, SO ANYONE OPEN TO MAKING A MOTION FOR A CONTINUED TILL SEPTEMBER 11TH? I'LL COME BACK WITH ELEVATIONS AND, OH, Z COMMISSIONER ZUNA. YEAH. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 23 DASH 0 3 8, I MOVE FOR A CONTINUANCE, UH, TO NOVEMBER, I MEAN, SORRY, TO SEPTEMBER THE 11TH. UH, AT THAT TIME, UH, I WOULD ASK THAT THE APPLICANT BE PUT ON THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA SO WE CAN HAVE A QUICK, UH, ADJUDICATION OF HIS CASE. SECOND, SECOND BY, I'M GONNA GIVE IT TO ZUNIGA. I THINK HE HAD CHIMED IN THERE. UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. NA. WE HAVE ONE OPPOSED. UM, THAT MEANS IT'S A NINE, UH, UH, 10 TO ONE VOTE. MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 13. HMM. UH, 2 0 4. OKAY. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ASHLEY LEO, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER B O A DASH 23 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 4. APPLICANT TRAVIS NK IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXEMPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK FACE. LOCATED AT 5 3 6 CANTON STREET ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO, THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON JULY 7TH, 2023. THERE IS CURRENTLY ONE ACTIVE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON THE BLOCK FACE PERMITTED ON FEBRUARY 23RD, 2023. THERE ARE 13 LOTS ON THIS BLOCK FACE AND 13 UNITS ON THIS BLOCK FACE RESULTING IN ONE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT PERMITTED BY RIGHT. IF THIS SPECIAL EXEMPTION IS APPROVED, THERE WILL BE A TOTAL OF TWO [04:25:01] TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS ON THIS BLOCK PHASE, TOTALING 15% OF THE CURRENT UNITS. ON AUGUST 11TH, 2023, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS APPROVED FOR A TYPE ONE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT. THESE ARE THE APPLICABLE CODE REFERENCES FROM CHAPTER 16, SECTION 16 DASH ZERO. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OCCUPANTS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES AND TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN WHICH SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES OPERATE. AND CHAPTER 35, SECTION 35 DASH 3 7 4 0 1 C STATES THAT TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN ONE EIGHT OR 12.5% OF THE TOTAL NUMBERS OF UNITS ON A BLOCK PHASE. THE PERMITTED NUMBERS OF ST IN ANY BLOCK PHASE SHALL NOT ROUND UP. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS. THERE ARE 13 UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE AS SHOWN ON THE ONE-STOP MAP. THE MAP ALSO SHOWS THE CURRENT ACTIVE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT LOCATED AT 5 1 4 CANTON STREET. AND THE CURRENT TYPE ONE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AGAIN, IF A SECOND TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT IS APPROVED, THE BLOCK FACE WILL BE AT 15%. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 2 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE PER SECTION 16 DASH. THE CITY CODE STAFF FINDS THAT THE APPROVAL OF AN INCREASE IN THE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT DENSITY WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY AND TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN WHICH THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY OPERATES. AND TWO, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT QUALIFIES FOR A TYPE ONE, THEY'RE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR A TYPE 2 39. NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT, ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE JEFFERSON HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. CAN I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SURE. SURE. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY OTHER SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSES IN, UH, EITHER ACTIVE OR, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THAT ONE. ON THE EXISTING SHORT-TERM RENTAL APPLICATION DOWN THE STREET, ARE THEY IN GOOD STANDING OR IS THERE ANY INFRACTIONS ON THAT OTHER SHORT-TERM RENTAL? YES. OKAY. THERE, WAIT, THERE ARE INFRACTIONS ON THE ONE AT FIVE 14? NO. YOUR FIRST QUESTION WAS . OKAY. THEY'RE IN GOOD STANDING? YES. OKAY. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND FOR THIS, UM, PROPERTY, THEY HAVE A TYPE ONE ALREADY. HE HAS A TYPE ONE FOR THIS PROPERTY? YEP. AWESOME. IT'S HOSTED, RIGHT? HOSTED AS FIVE. HE LIVES THERE? YES. IT HAS A HOMESTEAD AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. I HOPE YOU CAN HEAR ME. UM, I AM APPLYING FOR A TYPE TWO VARIANCE. UM, I RECENTLY PURCHASED THE HOME AT 5 3 6 CANTON AND HAVE, UH, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO LEAN IN A LITTLE BIT. I'M SORRY. IS THAT BETTER? YEAH. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME? UH, MY NAME IS TRAVIS DEL BRINK. OH, THANKS. AND I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THIS, UH, COMMUNITY SINCE 1998. I LEFT ACTIVE DUTY AND HAVE SINCE BEEN A RESERVIST AND, UM, HAVE LONG TIES TO THIS COMMUNITY. UM, I HAD PURCHASED THIS HOME, UM, WITH THE IDEA THAT I WAS GOING TO, UH, NEED THE SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME. UM, AND AS A RESERVIST, I'M SURE YOU'RE, YOU GUYS ARE ALL AWARE WITH THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE WORLD THAT, UH, THINGS ARE KIND OF, UH, UH, KINDA LIKE, UH, SAN ANTONIO IS, WE'RE, WE'RE GOT A LOT OF, A LOT OF POTENTIAL FIRES AND, UM, THAT WAS THE MAIN CONCERN. UM, THE REASON WHY I APPLIED FOR THE TYPE ONE IS BECAUSE I'M LIVING IN THE HOME, SO I DON'T NEED IT TODAY. UM, PRI PREVIOUSLY TO MY PURCHASING OF THE HOME, THE, UH, HOME DID HAVE A TYPE TWO PERMIT. SO THERE WERE ALREADY TWO, UM, TYPE TWOS ON THE BLOCK. AND THE COMMISSIONER'S, UH, PREVIOUS HEARING ON THE OTHER VARIANCE, UH, FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO, UH, DETRIMENTAL, UM, EFFECT OR ANY KIND OF CHARACTER, UH, UM, INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE DAMAGED. UM, AND AS FAR AS I, I KNOW THERE WAS, THERE'S NO VIOLATIONS, UM, FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER WHO, UH, I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM. UM, IF THE, UH, THE HOME IS, UH, GRANTED, UM, ACCESS, UM, THE MAIN, THE MAIN REASON WHY, AGAIN, IS BECAUSE I'M, I'M CONCERNED AS A RESERVIST, UM, THAT I'M POSSIBLY GONNA GET DEPLOYED TO, UH, TO HANDLE SOME OF THESE CONTINGENCIES. I'M A AIR TRANSPORTATION, UM, MAINTENANCE, [04:30:01] UH, SUPERVISOR. WE'RE THE, WE'RE THE PEOPLE THAT, UH, WE'RE THE FIRST IN LAST OUT. ANYTIME THAT THERE'S A CONTINGENCY, UM, WE'RE THE, WE'RE THE GUYS THAT ARE LOADING STUFF ON THE PLANES, UH, AND THEN GETTING IT TO ITS DEPLOYED LOCATION. SO MY CONCERN WITH THIS PROPERTY, UM, IS THAT IF I GET CALLED, I CAN'T COME BACK FOR A TYPE TWO VARIANCE BECAUSE I'LL BE DEPLOYED AND THAT MY HOME WILL BE SITTING, UM, UNOCCUPIED OR VACANT. AND, UM, MY CONCERN THEN WOULD BE, OF COURSE, WHAT IS THAT GONNA DO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S JUST INVITING PEOPLE TO EITHER, UM, ILLEGALLY OCCUPY MY HOME WHILE I'M GONE OR SUBJECT TO CRIME OR OTHER, OTHER THINGS THAT WILL CAUSE A DE DEFINITE DETRIMENT TO THE COMMUNITY. UM, THE FACT THAT THERE ARE, THAT THE HOME PREVIOUSLY HAD THE TYPE TWO, UM, THERE WAS NO, UM, I'M SORRY, I'M REALLY NERVOUS. UM, THERE WAS NO, UM, VIOLATIONS OR, OR THE, THE CHARACTER THEY, THE, UH, HAVING TWO PREVIOUSLY WAS NOT, UM, WAS NOT AFFECTED. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, UM, QUESTION FOR STAFF IS, DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG WOULD, DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG FOR THE APPLICANT? HOW LONG AGO? IT WAS A TYPE TWO? I KNOW THAT WHEN I PURCHASED THE HOME, IT HAD A TYPE TWO AND IT WAS CANCELED ON THE DATE JULY 10TH. YES. YEAH, IT DOESN'T CONVEY. AND THEN, UM, YOU HAVE, UH, STAFF, IF HE HAS A TYPE ONE AND, AND THEN HE GETS A TYPE TWO, THE, THE THREE YEARS WOULD START ALL OVER AGAIN FOR THE EXPIRATION? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? JUST TO CLARIFY? SO IT'S A, IF IF, IF HE WAS TO BE APPROVED TODAY, IT'D BE FOR A THREE YEAR TERM BEFORE IT GETS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE BOARD OR, YES, HE WOULD ALWAYS HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD. 'CAUSE IF THE OTHER IS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION YEAH, BECAUSE YEAH, IF THE OTHER, UNLESS THE OTHER ONE CANCELED, CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY. BECAUSE, UM, AND I JUST WANNA MENTION, UM, WE WOULD STILL NEED A 24 HOUR OPERATOR CONTACT IF, LIKE HE MENTIONED, IF HE'S GONNA BE DEPLOYED, WE NEED SOMEBODY THAT'S GONNA BE RESPONSIVE FOR THE PROPERTY. DOES CASE THAT PERSON HAVE TO LIVE IN THE COUNTY? SORRY, DOES THAT PERSON HAVE TO LIVE IN THE COUNTY OR CAN IT BE A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY? IT COULD BE WHOEVER HE WANTS TO DESIGNATE AS AN OPERATOR. SO WE CAN HAVE THAT IN FILE WITH THE PHONE NUMBER. ARE YOU, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE RULES THAT ARE DIFFERENT FOR A TYPE TWO? THAT'S I AM, WELL, IT'S FOR BOTH. FOR TYPE ONE AND TYPE TWO, WE NEED A 24 HOUR CONTACT. OKAY. AND THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. I, AS PART OF MY, UM, READINESS PLAN, I HAVE TO HAVE PLANS FOR MY, UH, MY CHILDREN AND ALL MY FINANCES. IT'S JUST PART, THAT'S JUST AN ADDITIONAL PART OF SOMETHING THAT I HAVE TO HAVE. OKAY. UM, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY YOU WANNA SIGN TO SPEAK? NO. PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. UH, ANY, ANYBODY, ANYBODY ELSE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE A QUESTION? ALRIGHT, ANNA, COMMISSIONER MANON. SO I GUESS, UM, SO, SO MY UNDERSTANDING THE REASON WHY THIS CAN'T BE RENTED OUT IS BECAUSE YOU STILL NEED TO LIVE THERE UNTIL IT IS THAT YOU'RE DEPLOYED. IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO STATE? WELL, SO THE ORDINANCE DOES STATE THAT, UM, FOR TYPE ONE, SINCE IT'S HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND HE HAS A HOMESTEAD, THE APPLICANT OWNER NEEDS TO GENERALLY BE PRESENT. SO IT WOULD BE FINE FOR HIM TO HAVE THE TYPE ONE, EVEN IF HE WERE TO GET DEPLOYED, AS LONG AS WE HAVE A 24 HOUR OPERATOR. SO HE COULD BE, IF, IF IF IF THE APPLICANT GOT DEPLOYED AND HE'S GONE A YEAR, HE COULD STILL OPERATE THE SDR R BECAUSE YOU DON'T GET DEPLOYED FOR TWO WEEKS OR ANYTHING, NO, UNFORTUNATELY NOT. SO, UM, WHAT KIND OF LENGTH OF TIME DO YOU, I MEAN, DO THEY EVEN GIVE YOU ANY SORT OF AN IDEA? HONESTLY, I, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR SURE. I JUST KNOW THAT IN MY 28 YEARS OF BEING IN THE MILITARY, I'VE NEVER SEEN, UM, QUARTERLY INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS AND WE'RE GETTING THOSE NOW SO THAT I CAN'T DIVULGE ANYTHING MORE. BUT THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S GOING BACK TO MY QUESTION THOUGH. SO, SO, UM, SO IF HE WAS DEPLOYED FOR A YEAR, UM, IF HE HAD A PROPERTY MANAGER, WHEN, WHEN THAT STILL QUALIFIES A TYPE ONE STAFF, THE DESIGNATED OPERATOR WOULD HAVE TO BE LIKE PRESENT IN THE PROPERTY? YEAH. HE COULDN'T HIRE A PROPERTY MANAGER. THEY'D HAVE TO LIVE THERE, GENERALLY. CORRECT. OKAY. SO, SO IT'D BE BASICALLY TWO PEOPLE LIVING THERE? YES. UM, SO THE PROPERTY MANAGER AND THEN THE, UM, THE, THE SHORTTERM, THE OTHER SHORT TERM RENTAL. RIGHT. SO [04:35:02] ARE THOSE KIND OF ARRANGEMENTS AVAILABLE? YOU, I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOU. I SEE THERE'S, THERE'S A DOZEN OTHER TYPE TWOS IN THIS AREA IN GENERAL, AND THEN THERE'S THE OTHER, AGAIN, ANOTHER ONE I'M MISSING BLOCK. SO JUST TRYING TO WORK THROUGH, UH, YEAH, HE COULD, HE COULD HIRE A PROPERTY MANAGER THAT DOESN'T LIVE THERE. YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY THAT HE WERE TO DESIGNATE AS A 24 HOUR CONTACT WOULD LIVE, GENERALLY LIVE ON THE PROPERTY. LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD PUT THE PERMIT UNDER THE DESIGNATE OPERATOR. LIKE HE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE AUTH AUTHORIZATION TO THAT DESIGNATED OPERATOR FOR THAT PERMIT. WELL, WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS IS A, IF THIS GETS PASSED AS A TYPE TWO, CAN HE STILL LIVE THERE AND RENT IT OUT? OR IS THAT, IS THAT A VIOLATION AS WELL? UM, WE'VE SEEN THAT PRIOR WHERE PEOPLE HAVE THE CONDOS FOR LIKE MEDICAL, LIKE THEY LIVE OUTTA TOWN, COME IN FOR MEDICAL PROCEDURES AND STAY IN THEIR HOUSE AND THEN MOVE OUT. I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE ISSUE IS BECAUSE OF THE HOMESTEAD, IT'S JUST HE'S, HE QUALIFIES AND HE, WE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GIVE HIM THE TYPE ONE BECAUSE OF THAT HOMESTEAD. IF HE DIDN'T HAVE THE HOMESTEAD? NO, NOT THAT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT, I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF HE LIVES THERE, LIKE HE, LET'S SAY HE DOESN'T GET DEPLOYED FOR TWO MORE MONTHS. IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS AND HE GOT HIS TYPE TWO TOMORROW, COULD HE LIVE THERE FOR TWO MONTHS AND THAT HAD, HAD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE AND RENT IT OUT? I GUESS BECAUSE IT WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD LET OTHER, UM, RESIDENTS, BECAUSE YOU KNOW HOW ON THIS BOARD, LIKE WHEN WE APPROVE THINGS, IT HAS TO BE UH, UM, MOVED FORTH WITHIN WHAT, 12 MONTHS. SO IF WE GIVE SOMEBODY A VARIANCE FOR SOMETHING, IF THEY, THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT WITHIN 12 MONTHS OR THE VARIANCE GOES AWAY, IT'S THE SAME THING, APPLY ON THIS SORT OF THING. N NO, WE DON'T HAVE THAT TERM RENTALS. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MANDA, DID YOU, DID I, DOES YOUR QUESTION GET ANSWERED? UM, YOU KNOW WHAT, WELL, TO ME IT SOUNDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OPTIONS AVAILABLE WITHOUT, WITHOUT GOING DOWN THE PI TWO ROUTE. AND I GUESS I WAS JUST TRYING TO YEAH, SO RESOLVE WHY THAT WOULDN'T, WHY IT WOULDN'T WORK. UM, YOU KNOW, IN WHAT SCENARIO IT WOULDN'T WORK. SO THAT WAY I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, I GUESS WHAT'S THE, UH, DRIVING REASON TO, YOU KNOW, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TYPE TWO? YEAH, THE STAFF IS SAYING THAT, THAT IF, IF IT'S A TYPE ONE AND HE GETS DEPLOYED, HE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A PROPERTY MANAGER THAT ACTUALLY GENERALLY LIVES THERE, NOT JUST IS THE PROPERTY MANAGER. RIGHT. AND IF IT'S A TYPE TWO, MY CONCERN WAS IF HE DOESN'T LIVE THERE, , IF HE DOES LIVE THERE, CAN HE STILL RENT IT OUT AS IF IT WAS A TYPE ONE AND HAVE THAT BE A PROBLEM? I, I JUST, THIS IS A QUIRKY SCENARIO, BUT, WELL, I GUESS GOING BACK TO THE, THE DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TYPE ONE. SO BASICALLY IT BECOMES THE TWO PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, RENTING OUT TO, I GUESS PAYING SOMEBODY TO, UM, OR HAVING SOMEBODY BE A PROPERTY OWNER, YOU KNOW, I GUESS TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THE DIALOGUE HERE. SO HAVE, YOU KNOW, HAVING SOMEONE BE A PROPERTY OWNER OR THE PROPERTY MANAGER, I GUESS THAT LIVES THERE AS WELL AS A SECOND TENANT. SO NO, THE PROPERTY MANAGER DOESN'T HAVE TO LIVE THERE THOUGH. SO I COULD, YOU COULD HIRE A REAL ESTATE AGENT TO BE YOUR PROPERTY MANAGER. THEY COULD GO BY ONCE IN A BLUE MOON, THEY COULD MAKE SURE THINGS ARE WORKING. THEY COULD BE THE 24 HOUR CONTACT, BUT THEY NEVER LIVE THERE. AND THEN THAT WOULD COUNT TYPE ONE. THAT WOULD BE A TYPE TWO. NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT TYPE ONE. YEAH, ON THE TYPE ONE, SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO LIVE THERE, RIGHT? SO, SO, SO A PROPERTY MANAGER WHO LIVES THERE, YOU KNOW, SO, SO BASICALLY TWO TYPE, UH, TWO TYPE ONE RENTALS, YOU KNOW, LIVING IN THE SAME HOUSE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I GUESS. SO YEAH. HAPPENS TO BE THERE. WHEN I, WHEN I, WHEN I HEAR A PROPERTY MANAGER, TO ME IT DOESN'T MEAN SOMEONE WHO LIVES THERE. IT MEANS SOMEONE YOU'RE HIRING. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A PROPERTY MANAGER. AS A DESIGNATED OPERATOR, WE'VE SEEN WHERE IT'S LIKE, UM, A NEPHEW, A SPOUSE, A NIECE, SOMEBODY THAT IS GONNA BE RESPONSIBLE WHEN THERE'S COMPLAINTS ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY JUST GENERALLY LIVE ON THE SITE. SO THEY'RE THE ONES THAT WOULD, UM, SUBMIT AN AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S GIVING AUTHORITY TO THAT DESIGNATED 24 HOUR CONTACT. BUT HE STILL WOULD HAVE TO FIND SOMEONE TO ACTUALLY LIVE THERE, TO BE PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY AS A TYPE ONE, TYPE ONE. AND, AND SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW, EVEN KNOW, EVEN FOR THE TYPE TWO, WE WOULD STILL NEED A 24 HOUR CONTACT IF EVEN FOR SOME REASON HE WERE TO GET DEPLOYED, WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE AND HE AND, AND THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, NOBODY KNOWS WHEN THE DEPLOYMENT HAPPENS. I MEAN, SO LET'S SAY THAT WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS AND HIS THREE YEAR CLOCK STARTED TOMORROW OR SOMETHING. EVERY DAY HE LIVES THERE, HE'S USING IT AS A TYPE ONE. IT'S ONLY GONNA BE A TYPE TWO USE WHEN HE IS DEPLOYED. WE NEED NEEDS, CORRECT. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS THE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT I DON'T GET STUCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE AND MY NEIGHBORHOOD ULTIMATELY GOES DOWNHILL OR GETS WORSE BECAUSE MY HOME IS NOW EITHER [04:40:01] VANDALIZED OR, OR YEAH, I KNOW THIS IS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. IT'S JUST KIND OF A, WE HAVEN'T HEARD A ANYONE ASK WITH THIS BEING THE REASON BEFORE. SO, UM, IF IT, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MINKA, MR. MINKA? UM, SO CAN I CAN UNDERSTAND THIS, IF YOU GET DEPLOYED, WHERE'S YOUR FAMILY STAYING AT? UM, MY, MY, UH, MY CHILDREN WOULD STAY WITH THEIR, THEIR MOTHERS IN ONE OF THESE HOUSES. NO, NOT IN THIS HOUSE. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. CRUZ, MR. CRUZ. YES, MA'AM. AND I'M PRETTY SURE I'M RIGHT. SINCE YOU SAY YOUR CHILDREN WILL STAY WITH THEIR MOTHERS, THEN THEY DON'T LIVE WITH YOU PERMANENTLY. CORRECT? THEY JUST COME ON OCCASIONS. YES. OKAY. THAT, THAT CLEARS UP THAT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. QUESTION FOR MR. VA. YEP. WITH THE STAFF. DOES THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAVE, HAVE A, LIKE A LIKE SPECIAL CATEGORY OF OTHER, BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF MILITARY TYPES, WE WANNA BE ACCOMMODATED TO THE NEEDS OF THOSE MIL TYPES CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS KIDS. AND SO, UH, MAYBE THERE IS SOME KIND OF PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS EXTRA OTHER. NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER CATEGORY AS OTHER, BUT YOU, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I I I I UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER VA IS SAYING IS THAT THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT INSTANCES WHERE ANY, ANYTIME A RESERVIST IS CALLED UP THEIR EMPLOYER OR THEIR, WELL, I CAN'T THINK OF ANYONE ELSE, BUT THEY SITUATION, THEY CAN'T JUST GO AROUND DOING THINGS LIKE NORMAL. SO, AND THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE UNIQUE SITUATION. YES. THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A PROVISION THAT THAT JUST GENERALLY APPLIES TO A, A RESERVE BEING DEPLOYED. NO, WE, OUR CODE DOES NOT MENTION LIKE, NOT EVEN IN THE CITY CODE, LIKE IN GENERAL NO, FOR THE S T R ORDINANCE. I, WE DON'T, I AM, I'M, I DON'T KNOW BY ANY OTHER ORDINANCES. OKAY. I, I, I FIND THAT VERY HARD BECAUSE SAN ANTONIO IS, UH, KNOWN AS MILITARY CITY U S A AND WE SHOULD BE ACCOMMODATING MR. CHAIR, THAT BEGS THE QUESTION ALSO IN FILING HIS MONTHLY REPORTS FROM WHEREVER HE'S DEPLOYED. WELL, I'M SURE IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM WE'D HEAR ABOUT IT, BUT I, I'VE LEARNED, UM, AFTER WATCHING THIS, THIS TODAY THAT HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS. AND I WILL MAKE SURE THAT'S DONE, YOU KNOW. WELL WHEN YOU, HOWEVER, IN INSTANCE, IN AN INSTANCE WHERE YOU WOULD BE DEPLOYED, YOU'D HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET, RIGHT? ONE WOULD HOPE. OKAY. UM, IT'S NOT GUARANTEED. UM, YOU KNOW, I COULD, THERE ARE PLACES, UH, WHEN WE GET FIRST SET UP, UM, IT MIGHT BE US AND, UH, THE ARMY SETTING UP AN AIRFIELD KIND OF THING. SO IT'S, IF, IF IT'S LIKE REALLY BAD, YOU KNOW, IT CAN'T, IT COULD BE SIMPLE AS A, YOU KNOW, GOING OVER TO OKINAWA OR SOME, SOME OTHER BASE ON THAT'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED, BUT IT COULD BE SETTING UP A NEW BASE DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS. RIGHT. COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, FOR, FOR THE APPLICANT? YES, SIR. UM, CONSULTATION WITH YOUR, WITH, WITH YOUR, WITH YOUR JAG CORPS, UH, PEOPLE, I BET YOU THEY, THEY HAVE A, AN OTHER WHERE THEY COULD, UH, APPROACH, UH, THE CITY MM-HMM. . I, I DO KNOW THAT THROUGH THE JAG AS YOU GO THROUGH YOUR DEPLOYMENT, UM, THERE, I CAN'T SAY THAT I'VE, I'VE HEARD SPECIFICALLY THAT THEY'VE RUN INTO THIS SITUATION, BUT IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, I JUST, I DON'T KNOW THAT, UH, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT I WILL DEFINITELY LOOK INTO, UM, AS I PREPARE MY, UM, MY, MY DEPLOYMENT PLAN FOR MY READINESS. OKAY. I, I WOULD THINK, UH, THAT THERE IS A SOLUTION BECAUSE OF HOW, THE IMPORTANCE THAT WE PUT ON, ON MILITARY PERSONNEL. RIGHT. COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER ZUNIGA? YES. UH, I DON'T KNOW WHO YOUR COUNCIL PERSON IS, UH, WHERE YOU LIVE, WHAT AREA? I BELIEVE IT'S COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. I, I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH. OKAY. THE THING IS, IS THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO DOES HAVE, UH, VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND IT INCLUDES THE CITY COUNCIL PERSON MM-HMM. THERE. UH, WHO'S IN CHARGE OF IT? I WOULDN'T KNOW, BUT THAT WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE I THINK THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO DICTATE TO D S D OR IN, IN THIS CASE, UH, TO D D IN PARK. AND MAYBE THEY'RE NOT AWARE OF IT, PROBABLY NOT, BUT I MEAN, YOU SHOULD MAKE CONTACT WITH 'EM OR, UH, CALL THE CITY MANAGER AND UH, THEY'LL WILL DIRECT YOU TO IT. BUT DEFINITELY THERE'S, THERE IS A VETERAN SPORT THERE COMPOSED OF OTHER CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE. I DON'T, I CAN LOOK IN THE COMPUTER, BUT I DON'T LIKE, WISH COUNCIL PERSON IS THE CHAIRPERSON OF THAT. OKAY. OKAY. SO, OKAY. AND THEY DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE. WELL, THERE'S PERIOD. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS AND YES. COMMISSIONER BEN, BEN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY. [04:45:01] IS MAJOR GENERAL JUANA, IS HE THE LIAISON BETWEEN THE MILITARY AND THE CITY? WHAT WAS THE NAME AND HIS POSITION? MAJOR GENERAL JUANA. I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S THE LIAISON, BUT HE IS PART OF THE, UM, G P A TEAM. UM, G P A BEING GOVERNMENT, UM, YEAH, GOVERNMENTAL PUBLIC AFFAIRS. OKAY. OKAY. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD TO A MOTION UNLESS ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION OR ANYONE? NOPE. OKAY. IT'S LOOKING FOR A MOTION THEN. I'LL DO IT. GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER BEBES, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 4, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR ONE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT SITUATED AT 5 3 6 CANTON STREET, APPLICANT BEING TRAVIS HURDLE BRINK BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY, THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT MAT, UH, MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO OPERATE AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS UNLIKELY TO MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE. THERE IS NOTHING OBVIOUS THAT WOULD DISTINGUISH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL VERSUS A LONG-TERM RENTAL AT THIS FACILITY. B, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A REASON TO BELIEVE A PUBLIC NUISANCE WOULD BE CREATED IF AN ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS APPROVED. C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE. THIS SCENARIO DOES NOT CAUSE REASON TO BELIEVE IT WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY, UH, INJURED, INJURED NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS A TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL, DE ADEQUATE UTILITIES, UH, ACCESS ROAD, STORM DRAIN, STORE STORM DRAINAGE, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND OTHER NE NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROVIDES OFF STREET PARKING AND APPEARS TO HAVE ADEQUATE UTILITIES ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE. E THE APPLICANT OR OWNER FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUSLY REVOKED SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSES. CONFIRMED CITATIONS OR ADJUDICATED OFFENSES CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE WITHIN ONE YEAR. PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE ANY HISTORY OF REVOCATION, CITATIONS, OR CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 16 F SPEC. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDING OFF STREET PARKING AND MAINTAINING IT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SEEKING THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION. END OF MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUNA. COMMISSIONER BENAVIDEZ. I PLAN ON, UH, I AGREE WITH THE MOTION AND I PLAN ON, UH, UM, VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT. MS. I SUPPORT AS WELL. SO THIS, THIS PROPERTY, UH, HISTORICALLY HAD A TYPE TWO, UH, HAD A TYPE TWO OR, UM, UM, WHAT I'M PERMIT ON, ON THE PROPERTY. ADDITIONALLY, IT'S WOULD TAKE IT TO A 15% COVERAGE ON THE BLOCK, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, UH, 12.5% IS THE CODE. AND SO IT'S REALLY NOT THAT MUCH, UM, OVER, WHAT IS THAT? 12 POINT 42.5%, 3.5% OVER THE, UH, ALLOWABLE. SO, UM, AND PLUS THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, HE HAS A GOOD REASON, UH, STORY OF WHAT HE'S TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE AND PROTECTING HIS ASSET AND THEN PROVIDING SOME FINANCIAL, UM, CERTAINTY WITHIN AN OPERATIONAL PROPERTY. SO I'M SUPPORTING ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD. I'M JUST GONNA ADD THAT, UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. AND A LOT OF IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THIS IS ONLY A THREE YEAR LICENSE. IT'S NOT GONNA START, UH, HE'LL BE OCCUPYING UNTIL THAT DAY, UH, OF HIS DEPLOYMENT, AND THEN IT'LL STILL HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD AT WHICH TIME CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE DIFFERENT AND THE BOARD CAN, CAN, UH, CHANGE THEIR MIND. IF SO, BE IT. SO, UH, WITH THAT, I'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE. [04:50:01] MS. BENAVIDES. I CONCUR. MR. OZUNA. I CONCUR. MR. SPIELMAN? I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE P'S OF FACT. MR. MANCHACA CONCUR. MR. DEAN, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA. I CONCUR. MS. BRAGMAN I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES NINE TO TWO. CONGRATULATIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UM, PLEASE TALK TO STAFF. OKAY? AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND I DO SUGGEST THAT, UH, THIS IS KIND OF NEW GROUND, YOU KNOW, YOU LIVING THERE MM-HMM. , JUST MAKE SURE YOU DO WHATEVER PAPERWORK NEEDS TO BE DONE. . YES SIR. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, UM, MAJOR GENERAL JUAN ALA IS THE DIRECTOR OF, UM, GOVERNMENT OF THE, UM, GOVERNMENT PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT. AND TIM WALLER IS THE ASSISTANT. OKAY. THE PHONE NUMBER, WE'LL, WE'LL GET IT FOR HIM, OKAY? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ITEM 15. OKAY, GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ASHLEY LEO, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER BO A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 2 7. APPLICANT, PRISCILLA GARCIA IS REQUESTING FOR AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE SHORT-TERM PERMIT LOCATED AT 7 0 9 EAST EVERGREEN COURT, ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE. THE APPLICANT OBTAINED A HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER AND BEGAN OPERATING WITHOUT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT IN DECEMBER, 2021. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INITIALLY APPLIED FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ON JANUARY 7TH, 2022, AND WAS APPROVED AND ISSUED BY STAFF ON JANUARY 11TH, 2022. OPERATORS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT MONTHLY REVENUES TO THE CITY'S REV FINANCE DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING REPORTING $0 IN REVENUES. THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT NOTIFIED THE OWNER OF DELINQUENT PAYMENTS OR REPORTS ON THEIR HOT ACCOUNT VIA EMAIL ON MARCH 6TH, 2023. NO PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THE 90 DAYS, THEREFORE THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON JUNE 23RD, 2023 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 16 DASH 1111 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED FROM OUR THIRD PARTY VENDOR, THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT STATES NO REVENUE REPORTS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM DECEMBER, 2021 TO MAY, 2023. IN JULY, 2023 AFTER REVOCATION, THE OWNER REPORTED AND PAID THE HOT ACCOUNT TAXES FOR ONLY THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2023 IN THE AMOUNT OF $245 AND 88 CENTS. THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT ESTIMATES THAT $32,948 IS OWED IN HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX FOR DECEMBER, 2021 TO MAY, 2023. SECTION 16 DASH 1110 D STATES THAT FAILURE TO TIMELY REPORT AND PAY HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX WITHIN 90 DAYS SHALL RESULT IN PERMIT REVOCATION. THIS IS THE COPY OF THE LETTER ATTACHED TO THE EMAIL SENT ON MARCH 6TH, 2023 FROM THE FI FROM THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT. THIS IS THE PORTION OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION WHERE THE APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES TO IMPLY, COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 22 OF THE CITY CODE. ALL APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO CHECK THIS SECTION BEFORE BEING ABLE TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL IN BO O A DASH 23 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 0 7 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT STAFF REVOKE THE PERMIT FOR THE VIOLATION DESCRIBED IN THIS PRESENTATION. TWO. THE OWNER OPERATOR OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT VIOLATED THE S T R ORDINANCE BY FAILING TO TIMELY REPORT REVENUES AND PAY THE ASSOCIATED HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX PAYMENTS. AND THREE, THE OWNER OPERATOR FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE EV EVEN AFTER ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO INFORM THE APPLICANT OF DELINQUENCY ON MARCH 6TH, 2023 BY CITY STAFF. 29 NOTICES WERE MAILED OUT, ONE IN FAVOR, THREE IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. [04:55:01] OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, CA. GOOD EVENING, COUNSEL. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE TODAY. UH, MY NAME'S PRISCILLA GARCIA AND I AM THE HOMEOWNER. AND THIS IS MY HOMESTEAD. UM, SORRY, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME PRESENTING IN FRONT OF A PANEL AND SO, OR BOARD, EXCUSE ME. UM, AND SO, UM, I'LL JUST KIND OF RUN THROUGH THE TIMELINE AND, UH, REPLY TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THAT, UH, MS. UM, ASHLEY READ OFF TO US. UM, UM, THE STATEMENT STATING THAT I HAD BEEN IN BUSINESS IN DECEMBER OF 2021 IS INCORRECT. UM, I DID NOT PURCHASE THE PROPERTY UNTIL MID-DECEMBER. UM, WE RELOCATED FROM AUSTIN, ME AND MY FAMILY, UH, MY PARTNER AND OUR, UH, TWO YEAR OLD SON TO BE CLOSER TO OUR IN-LAWS. AND, UM, WE DID NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT, UM, PLACING OUR HOME, UH, ON AIRBNB FOR ADDITIONAL INCOME UNTIL, UM, WE FOUND OUT THAT MY MOTHER, UH, WAS GETTING SICK. WE REALLY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON AT THE TIME. UH, I TRAVELED A LOT FOR WORK AND, UM, UM, WITH MY IN-LAWS HERE, MY PARTNER AND MY SON COULD GO STAY WITH MY IN-LAWS. AND WHEN I WAS TRAVELING OR IN AUSTIN WITH MY MOTHER, WE CAN RENT THE PROPERTY OUT. AND SO THEREFORE, UM, UM, LATE DECEMBER, EARLY JANUARY IS WHEN I APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT OF 2022. UM, IT WAS DURING THE PANDEMIC, AND SO I DIDN'T HEAR BACK FROM ANYBODY. I WOULD CALL, I WOULD LEAVE VOICE MESSAGES, UM, TO GET A HOLD OF SOMEBODY TO SEE IF, IF THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS POSSIBLE SINCE IT WAS MY HOMESTEAD, IS MY HOMESTEAD. AND, UM, ON JANUARY 11TH, UH, OF 2022, UM, SOMEONE FROM THE CITY REACHED OUT WITH A COPY OF OUR PERMIT AND IT WAS, UM, LITERALLY JUST A APPLICATION. AND THEN, UM, A RANDOM EMAIL AFTER A FEW WEEKS OR A COUPLE WEEKS, UM, STATING THAT I HAD BEEN GRANTED A, A SHORT-TERM PERMIT. UM, THE HOME DIDN'T GO INTO RENTAL UNTIL MID-MARCH. YOU KNOW, MY FAMILY AND I, UM, THIS WAS MID-MARCH OF 2022, OR SORRY, 23. UM, WE WERE STILL ON THE FENCE IF THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY WANTED TO DO. UM, UM, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M REALLY SORRY. IT, I DID NOT KNOW, UM, AS IT WAS REVEALED WHEN THE, UM, ASIAN FAMILY WAS HERE, UH, THAT I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE, UM, THE TAXES TO THE CITY. I GENUINELY THOUGHT THAT THE AIRBNB PLATFORM TOOK CARE OF ALL OF THE TAXES, BUT THAT WAS INCORRECT. AND THE RE THE WAY I FOUND OUT WAS, UM, THROUGH THE LETTER MAILED TO ME BY THE CITY, UM, IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, UH, AT THAT POINT I CAME DOWN TO THE CITY TO SPEAK WITH SOMEONE AND I WAS REFERRED TO LAND DEVELOPMENT AT THE VERY END OF THE HALL HERE. AND NO ONE CAN ANSWER MY QUESTION. SOME YOUNG GENTLEMAN HANDED ME A PERMIT APPLICATION AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM, I ALREADY HAVE A PERMIT. AND HE SAID, JUST GO TO THE SAME WEBSITE WHERE YOU, UM, SET UP YOUR PERMIT TO REQUEST A PAYMENT PLAN. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHY I CAME IN HERE. I SAID, I WANNA SET UP A PAYMENT PLAN SO THAT I CAN MAKE THINGS RIGHT. I'M NOW AWARE I NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THING. UM, AND SO I DID LOG ON TO HOT TAX, UM, BUT IT WAS, THERE WAS NOT AN OPTION THERE TO SET UP A PAYMENT PLAN. UM, MIND YOU, AT THIS TIME, UH, WE DID UNDERSTAND WHY MY MOM WAS GETTING SICK. SHE, UH, WAS DIAGNOSED WITH STAGE FOUR CANCER IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. AND, UM, I'M SORRY. AND SO I'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH TO AUSTIN, UM, TAKING CARE OF HER AS HER CAREGIVER AND HER CARE PROVIDER. UM, SHE HAD EXTENSIVE SURGERY DONE, UM, IN FEBRUARY. AND SO IT'S REALLY BEEN REALLY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO LIKE, JUST MANAGE THE DAY TO DAY. YOU KNOW, I HAD TO LEAVE MY SALARY JOB TO, UH, GET AN HOURLY JOB SO THAT I CAN, SORRY. SO I COULD HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY WITH MY CAREER TO BE THERE FOR HER. AND, UM, AS SOON AS I FOUND OUT, UM, IT LOOKS, IT LOOKS LIKE AFTER ALL OF THIS, GOING BACK TO EMAILS THAT THE CITY DID SEND OUT, THEY DID, THEY DID NOTIFY ME. THEY DID, UH, IN MAY LETTING ME KNOW I WAS DELINQUENT AFTER MARCH IN, UH, IN JUNE, THEY SENT AN EMAIL STATING THAT MY LICENSE HAD BEEN REVOKED. UM, AND THEN IT WASN'T UNTIL JULY THAT I WAS HOME, THAT I WAS HOME. UM, UM, AND I, I CALLED THE CITY IMMEDIATELY AND I SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M REALLY SORRY. THIS IS WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON. I HAVEN'T BEEN PRESENT. I DON'T HAVE THE MENTAL CAPACITY TO DEAL WITH ANYTHING RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, UM, MY MARRIAGE IS TOUGH. I'M NOT SEEING MY SON, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A LOT'S GOING ON AND I DIDN'T WANT TO AIR ALL THIS DIRTY LAUNDRY OUT, BUT [05:00:01] I JUST KIND OF FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, I GENUINELY WAS NOT AWARE OF, OF THE TA THE DELINQUENT TAXES. AND WHEN I WAS, I CAME TO THE CITY AND WHEN I HIT A ROADBLOCK, I ADMIT I SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY GONE FURTHER TO DIG DEEPER, UM, INTO GETTING HELP TO RESOLVE THIS INSTEAD OF LETTING MY LICENSE LAPSE. UM, AND SO, UM, SORRY. AND SO SINCE THEN, UM, AS OF JULY 12TH, AFTER THE DOOR HANGER WAS LEFT ON OUR DOOR, I CANCELED ALL OF OUR BOOKINGS. UM, AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NEW, UH, PAYMENT COLLECTION COMPANY AVENUE TO GET SET UP ON A PAYMENT PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS, UM, ADVISED TO DO BY ASHLEY. AND, UM, THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT NO ONE AT AVENUE KNOWS THAT THAT'S AN OPTION. AND SO I'VE HAD TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT TECH TICKETS OPEN THROUGH AVENUE. AND FINALLY YESTERDAY I WAS TOLD THAT A LADY BY THE NAME OF CALLIE FROM AVENUE, UH, WAS GOING TO CONTACT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO TO SEE HOW TO SET THIS PROGRAM UP. AND, YOU KNOW, UM, I REALLY NEED THIS ADDITIONAL INCOME RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW? UM, AND I'M REALLY SORRY FOR LAPSING ON MY PAYMENTS, BUT FROM THE MOMENT THAT I FOUND OUT, YOU KNOW, I WAS BEHIND, I'VE MADE AS MUCH EFFORT AS THE TIME ALLOWS ME TO MAKE, TO, UM, TRY TO TAKE CARE OF THIS. I UNDERSTAND. SO, SO LET, LET'S TRY TO GET SOME, SOME DATES AND SOME FACTS. YES, SIR. YOU KNOW, AND THEN, AND YOU TAKE YOUR TIME. SURE. I'M REALLY SORRY. DON'T, YOU DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. THIS, UM, SO YOU WERE, YOU WERE ISSUED A PERMIT IN JANUARY OF 2022? YES, SIR. OKAY. UH, DO YOU RECALL, AND DID, YOU HAD MENTIONED YOU DIDN'T HAVE YOUR FIRST RENTAL UNTIL WHEN? MID-MARCH. MID LATE OF 2022, MAR OF 20, UH, 23. SO YOU DIDN'T RENT IT OUT AT ALL UNTIL MARCH OF 2023. OH, I'M SORRY, 2022. MARCH OF 2022. THAT'S RIGHT. AND THE CITY WAS ESTIMATING THAT, THAT YOUR INDEBTEDNESS IS $32,948. IS THAT CORRECT? NO, SIR. THAT'S NOT CORRECT. WHAT, WHAT IS IT, WHAT IS THE AMOUNT? I, I CAME UP WITH, UH, ON AN AVERAGE? UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE WERE NOTIFIED IN JULY, UH, 11TH. SO I WENT ON, ON THE AVENUE SITE, UH, JULY 15TH TO PAY JUNES, WHICH IS THE FIRST MONTH THAT I WAS AWARE OF. AND, UM, WE, WE PAID, I THINK, CLOSE TO $300. AND THAT'S, UH, THAT WAS A BUSY MONTH FOR US, JUNE. SO I FEEL AS THOUGH THE 14 MONTHS THAT WE WERE BEHIND IT WOULD BE ANYWHERE FROM 2,800 TO 42 70 IN THE BACK TAXES. HAVE, HAVE YOU DONE YOUR MONTHLY FILINGS FROM MARCH OF 2022 TILL TODAY? NO, SIR. I HAVE NOT. UM, AS I MENTIONED, I DID NOT KNOW THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I HAD TO DO UNTIL MARCH OF 2023 WHEN I WAS MAILED, UH, MY FIRST LETTER FROM THE CITY. AND, UM, AGAIN, I DID COME DOWN TO THE CITY TO TRY TO, UH, TAKE CARE OF THAT AND DISCUSS SOME, SOME, UH, WITH SOMEONE ON HOW, UH, TO PAY MY BACK TAXES AND IF I CAN GET ON A PAYMENT PLAN. BECAUSE AT THE MOMENT, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT FINANCIALLY I CAN'T AFFORD TO JUST PAY ONE LUMP SUM. SO, UM, I WAS TOLD BY, I, I EMAILED SEVERAL PEOPLE, UH, MS. EMILY GARCIA, TINA MURILLO, UM, THE D D S D R S T R, SEVERAL EMAILS TRYING TO WORK THIS OUT. UM, AND YOU GOT, YOU GOT NOTIFIED BY EMAIL, MAIL, OR BOTH? UH, MY FIRST WAS BY MAIL IN MARCH 15TH OF 23, I BELIEVE, OR SORRY, UH, EARLY MARCH. I DON'T HAVE THAT EXACT DATE. I THINK IT WAS MAYBE THE SEVENTH OR SO. THAT WAS MY FIRST MAILING. AND THEN BETWEEN BEING BACK AND FORTH TO AUSTIN, I MISSED TWO EMAILS IN MAY AND JUNE STATING THAT I WAS DELINQUENT AND THAT MY PERMIT HAD BEEN REVOKED. AND THEN IT WASN'T UNTIL JULY 11TH THAT I RECEIVED A LETTER AND A DOOR HANGER FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT ASKING US TO, UM, HALT ON OUR STAYS. AND THAT'S WHEN WE DID. WE JUST STOPPED. OKAY. SO A QUESTION FOR STAFF IS IF, IF, UM, IF AN APPLICANT, IF THIS APPLICANT IS GRANTED HER APPEAL AND SHE DOES HER ALL HER FILINGS AND THERE'S MONEY THAT'S OWED, IS THERE ANOTHER 90 DAY CLOCK THAT STARTS, THAT WOULD START TOMORROW? THAT IF SHE DOESN'T MAKE GOOD ON ALL THIS STUFF, THAT IT COULD BE TAKEN AWAY AGAIN? SO IF THE PERMIT'S REINSTATED, YES, THERE IS ANOTHER 90 DAY, THERE ARE NINE DAYS ON THE CLOCK. SO JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND, IF IT GETS REINSTATED TODAY MM-HMM. , YOU WOULD BASICALLY HAVE 90 DAYS TO FILE ALL THOSE REPORTS FROM MARCH OF 2022 TILL TODAY AND MAKE GOOD ON ANY INDEBTEDNESS THAT YOU OWE. YES, SIR. OR IT COULD BE TAKEN AWAY ON THE 91ST DAY. RIGHT. I'M AWARE OF THAT. OKAY. I JUST AND THAT CAN COMMISSIONER ZUMA. YEAH. AND I'M SORRY. AND THAT WOULD ALSO [05:05:01] BE A PAYMENT PLAN RIDE IF THEY, IF SHE WAS TO, TO ARRANGE A PAYMENT PLAN TO HER AND THE YEAH. BETWEEN HER AND THE CITY TO, SO NO, IF IT'S REINSTATED THE PERMIT, PAYMENT PLAN OPTION'S NOT ON THE TABLE. SHE WOULD HAVE TO BE CURRENT ON ALL OF HER PAST. CORRECT. AND RIGHT NOW SHE'S, AND JUST RECONCILE THAT WITH THE CITY, RIGHT? I'M SORRY? AND SHE WOULD'VE TO RE RECONCILE THE AMOUNT WITH THE CITY. CORRECT. AND RIGHT NOW SHE'S DELINQUENT 49 DOCUMENTED STATES. SHE HAS WHAT, 49 9 DOCUMENTED STAYS, 49 DOCUMENTED STAYS THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED PAYMENT ON OUT OF THE COURSE OF, UH, 14, UH, 14 TO 16 MONTH. THIS WOULD BE OUR 16TH OR 17TH MONTH. BUT YES, UP UNTIL JUNE, THAT WOULD BE 14 MONTHS. BUT IF SHE GETS THIS REINSTATED, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY GET REINSTATED UNTIL SHE MAKES GOOD ON EVERYTHING. AND HOW LONG DOES SHE HAVE BEFORE, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS TODAY, OUR APPROVAL WOULD BE VOID. LIKE IS SHE, WHAT IF IT TAKES HER SIX WEEKS TO MAKE GOOD ON EVERYTHING, IS THAT, AT WHAT POINT DOES IT, IF WE WERE TO PROVE THIS, WHERE THAT DOESN'T MATTER. SO IF IT'S REINSTATED TODAY, WE WOULD ISSUE A, UH, DELINQUENT LETTER TOMORROW, WHICH GIVES HER 90 DAYS TO BRING THE ACCOUNT CARD. OKAY. 90 DAYS. OKAY. AND BUT UNTIL SHE'S, UNTIL SHE'S, UH, COMPLETELY CURRENT, SHE COULDN'T HAVE ANY RENTALS. CORRECT. OKAY. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE ON THE BOARD IS AWARE OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN OR NOT HAPPEN OR, OR WHATEVER. SO, UH, LET'S OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? MIN CHAKA, COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA, UH, THIS WAS FOR STAFF FINANCE. UH, SO IF THEY DON'T GET THE LETTER FROM YOU THAT THEY DIDN'T MAKE ANY MONEY IN THE MONTH, THE $32,000, UH, HOW IS THAT ASSESSED PER MONTH? IS IT A AUTOMATIC PERCENTAGE? AUTOMATIC, FINE, AUTOMATIC, SO WHATEVER THAT TOTALS UP TO 32,000. SO THE SYSTEM THAT WE DO USE LET'S US KNOW THAT SHE'S CHARGING $167 PER NIGHT AND WE MULTIPLY THAT BY THE 49 DOCUMENTED STAYS. SO IT'S A MID RANGE, BUT IT'S, THERE'S A MID, A LOW AND AN AND A HIGH. AND WE GO BY THE MID. THANK YOU CRUZ. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UH, SO FINANCE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT WITHIN MARCH OF LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR, SHE'S HAD 49, 49 PERSON STAY AT THE HOME AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER, IS THAT CORRECT? SO SHE HAD 44 FROM MARCH OF LAST YEAR UNTIL JUNE. WHEN SHE REPORTED JULY, WHEN SHE REPORTED IN AUGUST 2ND, SHE REPORTED ZERO DOCUMENTED, UH, ZERO REVENUE, BUT SHE HAD FIVE DOCUMENTED STAYS, WHICH MADE IT A TOTAL OF 49 DOCUMENTED STAYS. RIGHT. THOSE WERE ON THE, ON THE SCHEDULE. BUT WE DID COUNSEL PER, UM, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO I'M NOT SURE IF THE DATA HAS BEEN UPDATED, UM, AND PROVIDED, UM, BUT EVEN IF I DO, UM, A QUICK MATH ON 1 67, 49 TIMES ONE SEVEN TIMES THOUSAND. YEAH. I MEAN IT COMES OUT TO 654 BUCKS EVEN AT 49. AND AT 44 IT'S $587, 587 PER NO TOTAL. SO THAT'S JUST FOR THE STATES. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTIES AND INTEREST. SO YOU'RE ESTIMATING $32,948, OF WHICH $600 IS WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY OWE THE PENALTIES AND INTEREST IS $32,000? WELL, NO, NO, NO. SO THE, THE MYTH THAT WE USE THAT OF COURSE IS IT'S NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE PLATFORMS. IT'S JUST THE PLATFORMS THAT OUR SOFTWARE, UH, OVERSEES. WHICH PLATFORMS DOES IT OVERSEE? SO CURRENTLY, UM, WE WERE, WE'RE ONLY PICKING HER UP ON AIRBNB. THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S THE ONLY PLATFORM THAT I USE. YES. SO THAT IS AN EXCESS AMOUNT OF, SO IF SOMEBODY OWES $600 IN, IN HOT TAXES, WHAT, WHAT KIND OF PENALTIES AND WHAT, WHAT DOES THE CITY IMPOSE ON PENALTIES AND INTEREST? WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? SO IT'S 0.0833 PER MONTH. SO IT'S 10% PER ANNUM, AND THAT IS INTEREST AND THE PENALTY IS MINIMUM OF $5 AND DEPENDING ON THE AMOUNT, WHICH IS, COULD BE UP TO 5%. OH, SO THAT'S, THAT STILL WOULDN'T GET YOU ABOVE A THOUSAND DOLLARS. RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MANNA. YEAH, SO, SO THANK YOU FOR ASKING SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS THERE. OBVIOUSLY, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UM, THE, THE DELTA BETWEEN THE 32,000 AND, UM, THE, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE BACK OF THE MAP CALCULATIONS HERE. SO, SO, SO WHERE, WHERE IS THE OTHER $30,000 COMING FROM? THAT'S, I WAS WONDERING IT COULD BE ON ANY OTHER PLATFORMS THAT SHE IS LISTED ON. SO AGAIN, THE SYSTEM'S JUST PICKING [05:10:01] UP A MID RANGE, SO, OKAY. SO, SO IS IT THAT AN ASSUMPTION IS BEING MADE THAT ON THIS ONE PLATFORM, THERE'S, UM, A, A DELINQUENCY WE'LL SAY OF, OF, UM, A THOUSAND DOLLARS WILL ROUND UP AND, AND, UM, YOU ARE, UM, MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT ON ALL THE OTHER PLATFORMS THAT IT'S GONNA BE ANOTHER $30,000 DONE WORTH ON THOSE OTHER BUSINESSES. SO IT'S, IS THAT AN ASSUMPTION BASED? IT IS AN ASSUMPTION. SO ON THE, AGAIN, THE SYSTEM THAT WE DO USE, IT HAS PICKED UP THAT SHE HAS HAD, UH, 164 NIGHTS OCCUPIED. RIGHT. WELL, I'M STILL TRYING TO GET TO THE DELTA, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S A, A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT STORY. YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH $32,000 IN DEBT AND TAXES, BUT IF IT'S A THOUSAND DOLLARS, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, YOU KNOW? AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW WE GOT FROM 1000 TO 32,000. UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE, THE APPLICANTS KIND OF INDICATED THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ONLY ADVERTISING ON ONE PLATFORM, YOU KNOW THAT, HOW THE CITY CAN MAKE THAT LEAP TO SAY THAT HERE'S A DELTA, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT IT TRULY IS. AND SO, SO I GUESS WHAT WOULD THE APPLICANT HAVE TO DO TO DO, UM, TO CONTEST, I GUESS THAT IT IS 32,000 VERSUS 1000. SO WE DO NOT, UM, LET THEM KNOW WHAT THEY NEED TO REPORT. WE'RE NOT LICENSED TAX ADVISORS. SO IF THEY ENTER THAT THEIR REVENUE IS, FOR EXAMPLE, $4,000, WE DO ACCEPT THAT BECAUSE IT IS SELF-REPORTING. BUT AT THE TIME THAT THE ACCOUNT IS AUDITED BY EITHER THIS CITY, THE COUNTY, OR THE STATE, THAT'S WHEN IT'S DISCOVERED IF THE REVENUES THAT WERE ENTERED ARE CORRECT OR IF THEY NEED TO BE AMENDED. SO, SO BASICALLY WHEN SHE FILES HER PAPERWORK FROM MARCH OF 2022 TILL TODAY, THE ANSWER WILL BE OUT THERE, WHAT THE EXACT AMOUNT IS, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER, UH, WAIT, COMMISSIONER MAN, DO YOU STILL HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? THAT'S FINE. I'M GOOD. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLATFORM ONLY PICKS UP AIRBNB. WHAT TRIGGERS THE POSSIBILITY OF OTHER, IF THEY'RE ONLY PICKING UP AIRBNB? SO THERE'S 82 OTHER PLATFORMS. OKAY. AND SO ARE, ARE YOU, DOES THE SYSTEM EXTRAPOLATE THAT IF THERE'S 49 BOOKINGS ON THIS ONE SIDE, THEN THERE ARE 49 TIMES 81 ON OTHER SITES? SO IT DOES NOT, BECAUSE THERE'S, UH, THEY COULD BE LISTING, FOR EXAMPLE, ON CRAIGSLIST. THEY COULD BE LISTING ON FACEBOOK, THEY COULD BE LISTING ON ANY OTHER PLATFORM THAT OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT PICK UP ON. SO AGAIN, THE SYSTEM PICKED UP, PICKED UP THE PROPERTY THAT IT COULD BE LISTED 164 TIMES HAD 164 DOCUMENTED STATES. I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. OKAY. SO YEAH, THERE'S A, THERE'S AN THERE'S SOME ESTIMATING GOING ON HERE. SO WHAT, JUST A, YEAH, JUST A REMINDER, YES, IS ESTIMATING, JUST A REMINDER, GUYS, THAT WHAT'S ON THE TABLE IS THE PERMIT NOT TO FIGURE OUT THE PENALTY, WHAT'S ON THE PERMIT. SO I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE CITY. SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA, UH, ASK FOR A MOTION, WE'LL, WE'LL DELIBERATE. SO WHO'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? IT'S A SHORT ONE. COMMISSIONER CRUZ, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 23 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 7, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 7 0 9 EAST EVERGREEN COURT, APPLICANT BEING PRISCILLA GARCIA BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN REVOKING THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT AND A MOTION. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. OKAY. UM, I'M GONNA GO WITH THE APPLICANT AND SEE WHERE THAT GOES. I KNOW IT'S GONNA BE A HARDSHIP AND I THINK THAT, UH, SHE DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRY AGAIN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BAGMAN, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I THINK THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY HOLES IN THE CALCULATION OF THE FINES. UM, YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT SHE DIDN'T FILE THE REPORTS LIKE SHE SHOULD HAVE. I THINK SHE UNDERSTANDS THAT NOW. YES, MA'AM WILL MAKE GOOD ON IT, BUT I, I JUST HAVE REAL HEARTBURN ABOUT WHERE THOSE NUMBERS CAME FROM IN TERMS OF 32,000. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE, UM, APPEAL. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS, MANCHACA, COMMISSIONER, MANCHACA? UH, I FEEL THE SAME WAY WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND EVERY TIME I GET INTO FUZZY FINANCING, IT, IT'S A RED FLAG FOR ME. SO I WILL SUPPORT [05:15:01] THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? VASQUEZ, MR. VA? I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE APPLICANT AND I REGRET TO SAY THIS, BUT, UH, IT'S ALMOST DEVELOPING INTO A PATTERN WHERE THERE IS TOO MANY, TOO MUCH, UH, UH, DISCONNECT BETWEEN, UH, UH, THE, THE CITY AND, AND, UH, UH, THE, UH, WHAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE TO, UH, HURT, YOU KNOW, CLEAR SO MANY, UH, UNCERTAINTIES AND CONFUSION. SO, UM, THERE WOULD BE ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT IN, ON THE CITY'S PART, I WOULD SAY. ANYONE ELSE? I'M GONNA CHIME IN TOO. I'M GONNA DECIDE WITH THE APPLICANT ON THIS. 'CAUSE I AM ALSO SEEING A LOT OF CONSISTENCIES. I THINK IF THE, IF THE CITY'S GONNA GO OUT AND PUT DOOR HANGERS WHEN THEY TAKE AWAY YOUR PERMIT, THEY COULD PROBABLY GIVE YOU A DOOR HANGER IF YOU OWE 'EM, IF THEY THINK THEY OWE YOU $32,000. SO, UH, UM, I JUST THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME, UM, A SECOND LOOK AT HOW THE, THIS PROCESS IS HAPPENING. AGAIN. SOME PEOPLE GET NOTICED ONE WAY, SOME PEOPLE GET NOTICED, ANOTHER OTHER PEOPLE GET ON PAYMENT PLANS IF THEY'RE LUCKY AND THEN OTHERS DON'T. AND I, I JUST, UH, I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO MAKE GOOD, GET UP TO DATE AND YES, SIR. AND IN THEIR, IN THEIR TIME OF NEED. SO I'LL BE, UM, SUPPORTING THE APPLICANT. UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE APPLICANT. MS. BRAGMAN? YES, I APPROVE. MR. SPIELMAN? YES. MR. MANNA? YES. MR. MANCHACA? YES, MR. DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. ZUNIGA? YES. MS. MANEZ? I CONCUR. MR. ODA? YES, I CONCUR. MR. VASQUEZ, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN AND I CONCUR. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ONE. UH, PLEASE TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU KNOW, SET EVERYTHING STRAIGHT WITH THE CITY AND YES, SIR. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR ENDEAVORS, AND I'LL BE IN TOMORROW. AND I WISH, WISH YOUR MOTHER HEALTH, GOD BLESS YOU ALL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THIS IS, UH, VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 16, SPECIAL MEETING. YES. AND SO JUST TO REITERATE, YOU GOT AN EMAIL ABOUT THIS. UH, THE REASON WE NEED AN EXTRA MEETING IS BECAUSE YOU GOT A VERY HIGH VOLUME OF B O A CASES FOR, UH, THE NEXT CYCLE. IT WAS BASICALLY 24 CASES, SO WE NEED TO SPLIT THAT IN HALF. IN ORDER TO DO THAT. WE WILL HAVE THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER THE 11TH, BUT WE, UH, BY, UM, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE BEST DATE FOR YOU GUYS WOULD BE SEPTEMBER THE 18TH FOR THAT SPECIAL MEETING DATE. SO IF WE COULD JUST GET, UM, YOU GUYS TO DELIBERATE ON, ON THAT DATE, WE, WE'LL BE DONE FOR THE EVENING. AND THAT WILL BE 12 AND 12 OR ARE WE GONNA HAVE ANY, DO YOU FORESEE ANYTHING ELSE AT THE CORRECT? WELL, 12 AND 12 PLUS POTENTIALLY ANY LIKE A CONTINUANCE OR TWO. HOW ARE WE DOING THE REST OF THE YEAR? HOW SO FAR SO GOOD. IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN, WE WILL DO THE SAME THING, BUT RIGHT NOW, UH, THIS, THIS CYCLE JUST HAD WAY TOO MANY CASES AND WE, WE'LL BE HERE FOR TWO DAYS. . OKAY, SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO ACCEPT. UH, SEPTEMBER 18TH. MOTION. WHO, WHO'S THAT? THIS PHILIP MOTION. OH, COMMISSIONER MANDA MOVES. UH, WHO SECONDS SECOND. LIKE COMMISSIONER CRUZ. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, MOTION PASSES. SEPTEMBER 18TH WILL BE THE SPECIAL MEETING. UH, MS. FLORES? YES. CAN, CAN YOU GET A LUNCH OR DINNER? UH, SOME SOMETHING ELSE. THAT'S TOO MUCH BREAD. IT WAS, WELL, IT'S LITTER OF TURKEY THERE. I, I'M GONNA LEAVE, I'M GONNA LEAVE THAT ONE TO COMMISSIONER ZUNA. 'CAUSE ON THE 18TH I, I'M HAVING MY NEXT SURGERY ON THE 13TH, SO I'LL MISS THAT FIRST ONE AND I WILL ZOOM INTO THE FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND THEN I'LL BE BACK AND MANNA. SO, UM, I AM ACTUALLY GONNA BE ON VACATION ON THE 11TH. UM, BUT I WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE 18TH, SO I WILL NOT BE ATTENDING THE NEXT, I THINK THE 11TH IS THE NEXT MEETING. YEAH. AND THEN [ Approval of Minutes  ] WE HAVE A MO WE HAVE THE LAST IS THE MINUTES. UH, IS ANY, EVERYONE HAVE A CHANCE TO READ THAT? I MADE A COUPLE AMENDMENTS. UH, ANYONE LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? SO MOVED. I'M GONNA GIVE THAT TO BRAGMAN. WHO'S THE SECOND? ZUNIGA IS THE SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT, SO THAT IS SIX 50. WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.